The Ugly Canada Thread

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Betcha the guy and his wife/girlfriend are both about 5 foot 3. (Not that I have anything against shorter people, but it always looks ridiculous to see people not so tall trying to climb into these gigantic vehicles.)

It had an automated step bar that swings down because it was so tall even I would have a hard time reaching the first step (I'm 6'1"). The Napoleon who drove it would have needed even more help to climb up. Coal roller problems...









Not only do you look like a giant ass behind the wheel of one of these things you look like an even bigger ass getting in or out of them.

[O-tacular]

I wonder if the proposed Quebec ban of the niqab belongs in here?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I wonder if the proposed Quebec ban of the niqab belongs in here?

What's uglier? The niqab itself or the ban on niqabs?

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What's uglier? The niqab itself or the ban on niqabs?

Hijab doesn't bother me at all. I think it's even more attractive that contemporary western fashion trends when it's done as in trendy cities like Tehran.

Niqab, though, I'm not sure. It's like the Greek island monasteries that don't allow women. Tolerable in the background, but once you call attention to it, difficult to support.

Im torn because a woman choosing to wear all that would have to REALLY believe and itd certainly be a traumatic experience for her to have to go without it. I just doubt a lot of women are choosing it. Hijab I get. I subconsciously assume she chose herself to wear it whenever I see it now, especially if the rest of the look is modernly modest.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Hijab doesn't bother me at all. I think it's even more attractive that contemporary western fashion trends when it's done as in trendy cities like Tehran.

Niqab, though, I'm not sure. It's like the Greek island monasteries that don't allow women. Tolerable in the background, but once you call attention to it, difficult to support.

Im torn because a woman choosing to wear all that would have to REALLY believe and itd certainly be a traumatic experience for her to have to go without it. I just doubt a lot of women are choosing it. Hijab I get. I subconsciously assume she chose herself to wear it whenever I see it now, especially if the rest of the look is modernly modest.

I always do a double take when I see someone wearing a hijab with skin-tight lululemon yoga pants or skinny jeans that leave very little to the imagination.

And you do see this every once in a while.

One of my friends always says: "hijab on top, cameltoe on the bottom - the look of the 21st century!

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What's uglier? The niqab itself or the ban on niqabs?

This is a struggle I keep thinking about myself. The ban is, to me, misguided in that it serves to only ostracize Muslims and I think will increase conflict. People should be free to practice their religion and all that too.

But at the same time, I just can't see the niqab as anything other than an oppressive garment. I'll admit I don't know to what degree these women really want to wear it, and to what degree they're socially obligated to, but it makes me uncomfortable. If a woman does think it's oppressive but has no choice but to wear it because of her husband or whatever, I don't think the state can help there, but I don't think it's a neutral issue either.

And at that point, I face a more uncomfortable question: how are we letting people into Canada that believe that women should be told to cover their faces? If a local man was crazy jealous or whatever and told his girlfriend/wife to cover her face in public he would be demonized in the media, in the left-wing as well. But because the niqab is a religious expression that same level of domestic oppression is tolerated? Just doesn't sit well with me.

Regardless, it's an uncomfortable problem because in the current context you'll never know what the woman truly wants. Either the state tells her to take it off, or her society tells her to keep it on. The room for personal expression here is very limited.

[MolsonExport]

In today’s Quebec (and the rest of Canada), Muslims are often suspected as being less than patriotic Canadians. Any outward refusal to accept “Canadian values,” whatever those might be, only increases suspicion. Like the Christians in Rome, Muslims often (though by no means always or usually) live in their own community within a community, and engage in religious and cultural activities poorly understood by non-Muslims. Like the early Christians, Muslims are often a convenient scapegoat: Think of the oft-repeated cry that Syrian refugees somehow deprive other Canadians of jobs or social services.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columni...rgeting-muslims-over-the-niqab-is-absurd

[Acajack]

From that op-ed in the Citizen:

Writing in the second century, the Christian apologist and firebrand Tertullian mocked the stupid and cynical attacks against Christians: “The Romans think that the Christians are the cause of every public disaster and every misfortune of the people. If the Tiber rises up to the city walls, if the Nile does not reach the fields, if the weather does not change, if there is an earthquake, a famine, or a plague – immediately the shout is heard: ‘Throw the Christians to the lion!’ ”

Replace “Christians” with “Muslims,” “Tiber” and “Nile” with “St. Lawrence” and “Saguenay,” and “earthquake, famine, and plague” with “Bombardier facing steep tariffs and the government suffering in the polls,” and I think the two situations are similar.

Seriously folks? Am I living in a mature western democracy or not?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

But at the same time, I just can't see the niqab as anything other than an oppressive garment. I'll admit I don't know to what degree these women really want to wear it, and to what degree they're socially obligated to, but it makes me uncomfortable. If a woman does think it's oppressive but has no choice but to wear it because of her husband or whatever, I don't think the state can help there, but I don't think it's a neutral issue either.

.

The relationship between consent and coercion here is a highly complex one.

There does not appear to be a shortage of women who will publicly state that wearing the burqa/niqab is a choice that they freely make without any pressure whatsoever.

We admittedly have no idea how that decision is arrived at, and in non-Muslim cultures there are also decisions that people may make allegedly of their own free will that appear counter to their own interests, sometimes as a result of subtle or ingrained pressures, or sometimes for reasons unexplained.

[rousseau]

I'm mostly lurking these days, but this is getting ridiculous. It is not our responsibility as Canadians to "understand" Islam, and nobody should be chastised because it is perceived to be "poorly understood."

I don't know much about Jehova's Witnesses, and I don't care. They've got their temple or church or whatever in town, and that's fine. What little I do know about them is that they believe that blood transfusions are evil, which is stupid. They have rightly been charged criminally when denying transfusions to children because we, the dominant culture, believe that it is reprehensible to prevent minors from receiving medical attention that would save their lives.

Are Jehovah's Witnesses poorly understood? Who cares?

Some Muslims believe that women should cover their faces in public. I don't know the theological justifications for that in the Koran, and I don't...fucking...care. It is not my job to care. The only thing I know is that believing that women should cover their faces in public in 2017 in Canada is a travesty. Full-stop.

You know how you know when you've reached the puerile boundaries of political correctness? I think it's when we are impugned to fall over backwards to accommodate any and all cultural or religious practices that arrive on our shores without quid pro quo. We're generally an accepting, hands-off bunch in this country, but lots of people are finding that the face-covering of women crosses a line.

I don't think this line is unreasonable. Are we forcing Muslims to eat pork? Drink beer? Stop worshipping at the mosque? Go skinny-dipping? Do any "haram" stuff?

No.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

The only thing I know is that believing that women should cover their faces in public in 2017 in Canada is a travesty. Full-stop.
.

OK, maybe not believing that yourself, but how about being open to others believing that... if they want to?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

This is a struggle I keep thinking about myself. The ban is, to me, misguided in that it serves to only ostracize Muslims and I think will increase conflict. People should be free to practice their religion and all that too.
.......

I don't know that it will increase conflict. That might depend on the extent of civil disobedience. I would be more concerned, at least in the short term, about the risk of increased harrassment/assault of Muslim women if yahoos decide they now have licence to take matters into their own hands.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I'm mostly lurking these days, but this is getting ridiculous. It is not our responsibility as Canadians to "understand" Islam, and nobody should be chastised because it is perceived to be "poorly understood."

I don't know much about Jehova's Witnesses, and I don't care. They've got their temple or church or whatever in town, and that's fine. What little I do know about them is that they believe that blood transfusions are evil, which is stupid. They have rightly been charged criminally when denying transfusions to children because we, the dominant culture, believe that it is reprehensible to prevent minors from receiving medical attention that would save their lives.

Are Jehovah's Witnesses poorly understood? Who cares?

Some Muslims believe that women should cover their faces in public. I don't know the theological justifications for that in the Koran, and I don't...fucking...care. It is not my job to care. The only thing I know is that believing that women should cover their faces in public in 2017 in Canada is a travesty. Full-stop.

You know how you know when you've reached the puerile boundaries of political correctness? I think it's when we are impugned to fall over backwards to accommodate any and all cultural or religious practices that arrive on our shores without quid pro quo. We're generally an accepting, hands-off bunch in this country, but lots of people are finding that the face-covering of women crosses a line.

I don't think this line is unreasonable. Are we forcing Muslims to eat pork? Drink beer? Stop worshipping at the mosque? Go skinny-dipping? Do any "haram" stuff?

No.

I don't see the issue myself. There are some cultural practices such as honour killings, genital mutilation, domestic abuse etc. that I have no tolerance for, and neither does our law system. To me the face covering issue may be uncomfortable but there is freedom of religion here. Sadly I think that going after the burka will only hurt women of that culture even more. It makes them a target and does little to re-enforce their feelings of autonomy by having the government dictate what they can and can't wear.

Personally I also find it an ugly cultural practice but this is one of those cases where the slippery slope argument actually does apply. The next logical step from here in Quebec will be to ban any and all religious symbols in public space. That bothers me.

[GeneralLea]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I don't see the issue myself. There are some cultural practices such as honour killings, genital mutilation, domestic abuse etc. that I have no tolerance for, and neither does our law system. To me the face covering issue may be uncomfortable but there is freedom of religion here. Sadly I think that going after the burka will only hurt women of that culture even more. It makes them a target and does little to re-enforce their feelings of autonomy by having the government dictate what they can and can't wear.

Personally I also find it an ugly cultural practice but this is one of those cases where the slippery slope argument actually does apply. The next logical step from here in Quebec will be to ban any and all religious symbols in public space. That bothers me.

I agree with you on this. Though there may be some trouble with identifying someone in a burka and it may disgruntle some people not used to Islam/ from the older generation which barely if ever dealt with Islam, I find it to be important that women can be fully expressive of what they want to show in terms of following Islam or whatever religion. I'm very concerned of how Quebec is taking this issue.....I really don't think there'll be any simple way of solving Islamophobia in Quebec.....heck even in the US for a few years.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Sadly I think that going after the burka will only hurt women of that culture even more. It makes them a target...

I've got an idea that would help. How about not covering your face?

Seriously. Wear a hijab instead. It really is just this one thing that Canadians, the most accommodating people in the history of the world, have started to draw the line on.

We show our faces in Canada. In Canada women are not second-class citizens whose faces must be covered up when they leave the house. This is not our culture in 2017. I'm perfectly comfortable with saying that if you really feel that allowing your wife to show her face out of doors is a deal-breaker, then maybe Canadian culture isn't for you.

We let you do every other thing you want. I mean, Canada has a city like Toronto that is a global bazaar where anything goes. So how about compromising on this one little thing?

Originally Posted by O-tacular

...and does little to re-enforce their feelings of autonomy by having the government dictate what they can and can't wear.

There too many strawmen being tossed around by the niqab-friendly on this forum and elsewhere. The government of Quebec is restricting one thing, and one thing only: covering your face.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I've got an idea that would help. How about not covering your face?

Seriously. Wear a hijab instead. It really is just this one thing that Canadians, the most accommodating people in the history of the world, have started to draw the line on.

We show our faces in Canada. In Canada women are not second-class citizens whose faces must be covered up when they leave the house. This is not our culture in 2017. I'm perfectly comfortable with saying that if you really feel that allowing your wife to show her face out of doors is a deal-breaker, then maybe Canadian culture isn't for you.

We let you do every other thing you want. I mean, Canada has a city like Toronto that is a global bazaar where anything goes. So how about compromising on this one little thing?


There too many strawmen being tossed around by the niqab-friendly on this forum and elsewhere. The government of Quebec is restricting one thing, and one thing only: covering your face.

Part of me agrees with you. Another part of me sees this as the first step in Quebec towards banning all religious symbols period. And sure, the burka is more cultural than religious, but it has become a symbol of religion and those arguing against it in Quebec are also arguing against crosses and yamakas. I'm all for women being equal but I think there's an ugly undercurrent to this that goes beyond that. You aren't xenophobic in your argument but there are many that are. Like I said this to me seems like it is targeting the wrong people. If they really wanted to send a message they should argue equality and only allow the burka if the man wears one too .

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

To me the face covering issue may be uncomfortable but there is freedom of religion here.

Yeah, freedom of religion but only within the bounds of the law. That's what this is about. If your religion prevents you from moving your car on a given day on which you can't leave it where it is, you deserve to have to pay the parking ticket that's the result of your decision. It's strictly your own problem, the rules are (or should be) thoroughly secular and apply to everyone equally.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Personally I also find it an ugly cultural practice but this is one of those cases where the slippery slope argument actually does apply.

The slippery slope argument IMO works the other way - in a modern democracy, letting religion trump law is the slippery slope, not the other way around.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yeah, freedom of religion but only within the bounds of the law. That's what this is about. If your religion prevents you from moving your car on a given day on which you can't leave it where it is, you deserve to have to pay the parking ticket that's the result of your decision. It's strictly your own problem, the rules are (or should be) thoroughly secular and apply to everyone equally.

Remind me what laws women with niqabs have broken again?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Remind me what laws women with niqabs have broken again?

62, if they give or receive government services while having their face hidden.