The Ugly Canada Thread

[Acajack]

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 highly doubt Quebec will ban all religious symbols from public space. They are not even banning niqabs and burqas from public spaces under 62. This reaction is over the top, and burying one's head in the sand as to how extreme a form of religious expression this is and what it represents.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

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 .

Again you don't seem to grasp radical Islam"s end game. They wouldn"t be interested in this coackamamie scheme because that is not what this is about. This is about guys in speedos and their wives in black tents in 35c weather at the beach.

[kwoldtimer]

The subject of fabric over faces seems to have hijacked three different threads. Time for the creation of a separate thread perhaps?

[vid]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Remind me what laws women with niqabs have broken again?

Originally Posted by lio45

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

I'm loving this circular logic! Keep it going, Lio!

It's just so quintessentially Quebec to respond to the urgent crisis of "men are telling women how to dress!!" by having a room full of men pass a law telling women how to dress. I loved the argument some Quebecois lady gave on the news a few days ago: "If I were in Saudi Arabia or Iran, I wouldn't be allowed to wear a cross around my neck". Haha, yes! Quebec is Saudi Arabia's Christian analogue! Good work, guys!

[lio45]

You guys don't seem to get that the essence of this bill (in one form or another) has been many years in the making. Dates back to the previous PLQ government. The gist of it, in all cases, is to put our collective foot down and say that's how things are here, take it or leave it. Nothing wrong with that.

Make no mistake, this bill is the direct product of the popular outrage generated by unreasonable accomodations. Years in the making, and altered, but still very recognizable (if you've followed; given that it took years, it's perfectly understandable that people speaking foreign languages and living 1,000+ km away may not have followed at all and therefore be quite clueless). So the question "what law got broken by the niqab specifically" is a red herring. Some laws did get broken by other types of accomodations, though. And it's reasonable to require people to show their faces in certain contexts.

As gets pointed out nearly every time this subject comes up - there's a vast pool of potential immigrants who all wish to come here if we'd let them. We've got a yearly cap because we choose to have one and our quota is not hard to fill. If these rules drive some away, that's pretty good. The ones who'll end up filling their spots will likely be a better cultural fit. Win win.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

It's just so quintessentially Quebec to respond to the urgent crisis of "men are telling women how to dress!!" by having a room full of men pass a law telling women how to dress.

? What room would this be?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The subject of fabric over faces seems to have hijacked three different threads. Time for the creation of a separate thread perhaps?

I suppose we should, 'cause as you point out this discussion is currently ongoing in no less than three separate threads.

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

? What room would this be?

Sorry, National Assembly. Telling women what to wear is only legitimate when the ceremonial mace is present.

[lio45]

Well if you had said "being told what to wear by a room of ~⅓ women and ~⅔ men" then there wouldn't have been any ambiguity. (The Justice Minister who is defending her Bill 62 is also a woman, FWIW.)

[vid]

Just like how gay men can be homophobic, women can be patriarchal and misogynist. There are plenty of women out there who argue against the right of women to vote, that doesn't mean it's a valid point.

Where I come from, such a law would force our babkas and babushkas to partially disrobe just to board a bus. But they're one of the bus's most loyal customer groups!

Honestly though the gender of the person tabling the law doesn't negate the fact that your province just responded to something it considers to be wrong by doing something just as wrong. Men forcing women to wear certain things or behave in certain ways against their will is already illegal (at least on paper) but we don't do very much to actually support the women who are victims of this, and bill 62 doesn't fix that problem.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

But they're one of the bus's most loyal customer groups!

Do they all share the same single nontransferable bus pass and use it to do all their errands each in turn?

I'm sure such a person would be, in the records, the bus's most loyal single customer, as you say....

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by vid

Sorry, National Assembly. Telling women what to wear is only legitimate when the ceremonial mace is present.

Speaking of the Quebec legislature, there now seems to be an opposition motion in the works to finally remove the Duplessis' crucifix from the wall behind the Speaker's chair. Some good may yet come of all this ...

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

Do they all share the same single nontransferable bus pass and use it to do all their errands each in turn?

How is this tied to race or religion?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

How is this tied to race or religion?

Because there's an argument to be made that if you're using an expensive, nontransferable bus pass that's got your picture on it, you should show your face while boarding to validate your identity, which is a logical requirement that's race- and religion-neutral, i.e. you shouldn't be able to play the race card or the religion card to get to escape the rules that all the other citizens have to live with.

So, in a sense, it's not tied to race or religion at all, which means it becomes tied to race/religion when people bring it up to demand to be exempted from the rules.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by vid

How is this tied to race or religion?

His insinuation is that somehow women who wear burkas do it for the perks like sharing one bus pass or club card. They’re really just in it for the kicks. But wait, I thought this was about oppression of women...

This whole thing seems less about actually protecting said women and more about playing to the sensibilities of uncomfortable Canadians. The proposed solution seems oppressive in a whole new way.

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

Because there's an argument to be made that if you're using an expensive, nontransferable bus pass that's got your picture on it, you should show your face, and it's race- and religion-neutral, i.e. you shouldn't be able to play the race card or the religion card to get to escape the rules that all the other citizens have to live with.

So, in a sense, it's not tied to race or religion at all, which means it gets tied to race/religion when people bring it up to demand to be exempted from the rules.

I wonder how Iran does it. They have public transit there, too.

No pictures on bus passes in my city. I guess that's just a Quebec thing, like misogyny, racism and banning languages.

[lio45]

FWIW, here's a generally pro-Canadian writer's take (IIRC, she's been married to a Brit for decades and lived in the UK for a while).

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2017/10/23/dear-canadian-friends

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

His insinuation is that somehow women who wear burkas do it for the perks like sharing one bus pass or club card. They’re really just in it for the kicks. But wait, I thought this was about oppression of women...

This whole thing seems less about actually protecting said women and more about playing to the sensibilities of uncomfortable Canadians. The proposed solution seems oppressive in a whole new way.

You really seem to be making extra efforts to ensure that you don't get it...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

I wonder how Iran does it. They have public transit there, too.

Transferable bus passes, I would assume. Or else women have to stay home, locked up like property or furniture, so they don't take the bus (or they have to be chaperoned by someone who'll vouch for them).

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

You really seem to be making extra efforts to ensure that you don't get it...

Just trying to understand what it is about the niqab that makes life for Quebecois so unbearable?