PDA

View Full Version : Quebec joins push to lift Islamic veils



Grumpy Cat
06-01-2010, 09:01 PM
Province not alone in seeking restrictions on face-coverings

MONTREAL — WHILE IT’S the lone Canadian province having a full-on debate about restricting Islamic face-coverings, Quebec is one of many places in the world implementing such sartorial clampdowns.

A look at the international portrait offers at least two interesting revelations.

First, Quebec’s proposed burka restrictions would actually be middle-of-the-road in terms of severity, compared with similar laws being passed around the world.

Also, a glimpse at the varying reasons for the bans, from France to Tajikistan, provides as much insight about the societies passing the laws as it does about the people wearing the veil.

Under Quebec’s bill, all public services would have to be given and received with an uncovered face.

Some Muslim groups and human-rights advocates say it’s discriminatory, tramples on free expression and uses a legislative sledgehammer to stomp on the minuscule number of people who wear face-coverings.

Others say it doesn’t go far enough.

"There is nothing in Quebec law that dictates we’re secular here," Christiane Pelchat, president of the government body tasked with monitoring gender equality, said during legislative hearings.

She wants the legislation to include a section that would make it clear religion has no place in public institutions.

Though the final form of Quebec’s niqab law is still being examined in the legislature, and is far from settled, it will likely fall somewhere in the mainstream of similar laws elsewhere in the world.

Belgium’s parliament is currently debating a proposal that would make wearing a face veil illegal; France is set to impose fines on women with a covered face; Egypt has limited face-coverings at universities; Tajikistan, meanwhile, has banned certain religious headwear.

The impetus for such bans can be strikingly different from one jurisdiction to the next. In Egypt, it’s a way of stifling dissent against Hosni Mubarak’s autocratic government. In Tajikistan, it limits what’s seen as the foreign influence of Arabs in Central Asia.

In Quebec, Premier Jean Charest says the niqab represents an affront to two of the province’s fundamental values: secularism and the equality of the sexes.

It is a common refrain heard throughout the debate here.

The law’s supporters frequently raise the spectre of pre-1960s Quebec — which was among the western world’s most religious societies, where women only got the right to vote in 1940 (a generation after the rest of Canada) and were forced to fight for it against a powerful, resistant clergy.

Supporters of the ban say they don’t want a return to that era where religious fanaticism was widely tolerated, and where women were treated as second-class citizens.

The draft legislation would require women to uncover if they want to work — or obtain services — at the auto-insurance board, health department, or schools.

Similar arguments are being made in Europe, where countries going ahead with anti-niqab or burka legislation describe it as a matter of integration.

Belgium’s lower house of parliament voted unanimously last month to ban both the burka and niqab.

"We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen," said Daniel Bacquelaine, the Belgian politician who proposed the bill.

Failure to respect the ban would result in fines of between 15-20 euros — or up to a week in jail. The legislation still has to be approved by Belgium’s upper house.

Belgium has a far smaller Muslim population than its neighbour, France, which is home to more than five million Muslims.

On Wednesday, French Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie rolled out a draft law banning Muslim face-coverings, the first formal step in a process to forbid such attire in all public places in France.

As in Belgium, offenders would face fines and in some cases could also have their citizenship reclassified.

The French government’s stated rationale echoes the arguments circulated in Quebec, namely that face-coverings oppress women.

"Citizenship should be experienced with an uncovered face," said President Nicolas Sarkozy. "There can be no other solution but a ban in all public places."

There is, however, considerable concern the law could violate the French constitution.

Elsewhere in Europe, the application of face-covering bans has been tied to more explicitly reactionary politics.

A woman wearing a burka in the northern Italian town of Novara was detained last month, and fined 500 euros, for contravening a local bylaw against clothing that impedes easy identification in public buildings.

The bylaw was passed by the town’s mayor, a member of the anti-immigration party Northern League. Novara’s police chief has acknowledged that spot-checks there specifically target Muslims.

"There are still some people that refuse to understand that our community in Novara does not accept and does not want people going around wearing the burka," said mayor Massimo Giordano.

Similar bans have entirely different connotations in predominantly Muslim countries. An Egyptian court earlier this year upheld the government’s ban on wearing Islamic face-coverings to university exams. A lawyer for the students challenging the ban said it supported "rape and sexual harassment."

At the same time, a court last year struck down a ban on coverings in university dorms.

Such decisions are loaded with political significance given that the main threat to Mubarak’s rule comes in the form of more fundamentalist Islamic groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/1184882.html

Aemma
06-01-2010, 09:13 PM
Well good on Quebec is all I have to say. I'm glad to hear that we have at least one province in this country that is for secularism!

In a former lifetime I would have argued that such laws are discriminatory against Muslim women. Why allow Sikh men to wear a turban while Muslim women are hindered from wearing their own religious headdress. Clearly a double standard.

However, I have since changed my views on such things--a long long time ago.

Grumpy Cat
06-01-2010, 09:16 PM
Well good on Quebec is all I have to say. I'm glad to hear that we have at least one province in this country that is for secularism!


Yeah. Quebec is becoming more and more of an attractive place to relocate to, even though I said I never would (folks there gotta learn how to drive :p ).

Not just in their defending of secularism but also in how they make strides to preserve their culture.

Hell, I'd even vote for the Bloc if I could! Gilles Duceppe's views are pretty much identical to my views (preservationalist, rejecting multiculturalism, but still leans to the center-left) except for the Quebec being independent part.

Aemma
06-01-2010, 09:24 PM
Yeah. Quebec is becoming more and more of an attractive place to relocate to, even though I said I never would (folks there gotta learn how to drive :p ).

Not just in their defending of secularism but also in how they make strides to preserve their culture.

Hell, I'd even vote for the Bloc if I could! Gilles Duceppe's views are pretty much identical to my views, except for the Quebec being independent part.

You know I've heard this from other hors-Quebec Franco-Canucks lately. It might eventually be the only place where we can actually still be "French Canadian" one day. :(

I hear you on the driving bit though! ;) No offence Laurentian, but you guys are some crazy on those streets! :P :D

And yes! Duceppe! Oddly enough I'd have voted for him too had I been permitted to do so. He was seriously a very attractive candidate in some of the last few real elections we had a while back. He seemed to have made the most sense! :thumb001:

Grumpy Cat
06-01-2010, 09:24 PM
Another reason I like Duceppe (from the debate last year):

R-NeXiq0Do0

ZING!!!!! :D :lol:

Grumpy Cat
06-01-2010, 09:31 PM
You know I've heard this from other hors-Quebec Franco-Canucks lately. It might eventually be the only place where we can actually still be "French Canadian" one day. :(

Not just French Canadian. It may be the only place to be Canadian, period someday.

I don't know, we Acadians may still have our place, we're stubborn as hell. We have been for 250 years. You'd have to kill us to eradicate our culture, and we won't sit idly by when someone tries that, either.

Grumpy Cat
06-01-2010, 09:40 PM
Quebec Right on Muslims

While nobody was watching, Quebec quietly became the most self-confident province in the country. A series of events over the past few years have shown Quebec to be proud of its liberalism, proud of Western civilization and proud of itself.

The latest involves the Quebec government giving a Muslim woman who wants to be a prison guard a choice: She could either remove her hijab or she could train to be a prison guard. But she could not do both. The woman chose the hjiab.

Predictably, Muslim advocacy groups have been crying racism. “It is an ultimatum, remove the hijab or you’re out of here,” said the head of the Muslim Council of Britain. “That’s not a security issue, this is much more a bigoted issue.”

The government stuck to its guns.

“As a security measure, the hijab cannot be accepted as an element of the uniform to execute the functions of a correctional officer,” a department spokesman said.

The Muslim Council called for compromise—something that covers the hair and neck that isn’t a hijab—but the government refused.

This may seem unnecessarily rigid on the part of the government, but this is not an isolated issue. All across the Western world, Muslims are struggling to fit in, to balance the norms of liberal democracies with the requirements of their faith.

The wisest thing all societies can do is say, right from the beginning, there will be no compromise on liberal values. Muslims deserve equal rights, not special rights.

For that is what is being asked for here. The prison has a policy of not allowing headgear. This woman is saying her faith demands it and an exception should be made. If that is the case, then she must adapt, not Quebec.

This incident follows a long line Quebec has faced with reasonably consistent resolve. First there was the attempt to use Islamic tribunals to settle family disputes. Next there was the adoption of a code of conduct for immigrants by the small towns of Saint-Roch-de-Mekinac and Herouxville. Finally, there was the soccer referee who ejected a player for wearing a hijab on the pitch, a violation of the province’s sports regulations.

The Quebec government stood by principle and said yes to assimilation and integration and no to accommodation.

The Canadian Islamic Congress had called for “Smart Integration,” a halfway measure between integration and segregation.

What is smart is realizing the North American method of integration has worked for over a century. Canadians and Americans have welcomed and lived in relative harmony with immigrants since their founding.

Where did Quebec get this confidence? According to the Toronto Star, experts say that it comes from an affinity with France and seeing how the French have had trouble with their Muslim citizens.

I’m not so sure. I think it comes as much from fighting for the French-Canadian identity with English-Canadians for centuries. When one lives in a community that prizes identity and community solidarity, when one places importance on identity and heritage because this is the only way to survive, then one learns not to compromise.

If, like the rest of Canada, one can take heritage and identity for granted, one becomes lazy with it and might not even mind giving it up. For a while.

Then one realizes, according to the latest census, that by 2025 Canada will be a country made up by a majority of immigrants. All of a sudden, common liberal values and equal treatment become more important. When 2025 comes along, Quebec will be in the best position of all.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/04/quebec_right_on.php

Aemma
06-01-2010, 09:49 PM
Not just French Canadian. It may be the only place to be Canadian, period someday.

Not too sure about that part though. It might be "the rest of Canada" is called Canadian and those who live in Quebec are all just Quebecois. No! Wait! :D


I don't know, we Acadians may still have our place, we're stubborn as hell. We have been for 250 years. You'd have to kill us to eradicate our culture, and we won't sit idly by when someone tries that, either.

:thumb001:


I was surprised to read what I did about the French government however. I thought for sure they would have caved on such an issue given their large Muslim population. Who knew? :shrug:

Grumpy Cat
06-01-2010, 10:11 PM
I don't know. But I heard something scary on PEI once:

An Islander saying to a Muslim "You guys can take over this place and call it whatever you want!"

I shook my head.

I mean, PEI has a Middle Eastern premier (think he is Christian, though) but he is culturally an Islander and his family integrated. What makes people who arrived more recently so special?

Eldritch
06-01-2010, 10:21 PM
I think Muslims screaming, waving cardboard signs with retarded slogans on them, running around trampling each other to death, throwing stones, bottles and bricks, shooting Kalashnikovs in the air and burning the embassies of countries totally unrelated to what's enraging them this week is f-king hilarious. I support anything that makes them do more of it. :thumbs up

Grumpy Cat
06-01-2010, 10:24 PM
I think Muslims screaming, waving cardboard signs with retarded slogans on them, running around trampling each other to death, throwing stones, bottles and bricks, shooting Kalashnikovs in the air and burning the embassies of countries totally unrelated to what's enraging them this week is f-king hilarious. I support anything that makes them do more of it. :thumbs up

Well if I see one Canadian flag on fire, it won't be hilarious. :mad:

I know the people doing that are idiots and not all Muslims are like that, but still.

poiuytrewq0987
06-01-2010, 10:25 PM
I think Muslims screaming, waving cardboard signs with retarded slogans on them, running around trampling each other to death, throwing stones, bottles and bricks, shooting Kalashnikovs in the air and burning the embassies of countries totally unrelated to what's enraging them this week is f-king hilarious. I support anything that makes them do more of it. :thumbs up

Aren't they already rioting over the assault on the ships who tried to break a blockade?

http://www.fmft.net/archives/gangsta1/gangsta%201.JPG

Grumpy Cat
06-01-2010, 10:27 PM
Aren't they already rioting over the assault on the ships who tried to break a blockade?

http://www.fmft.net/archives/gangsta1/gangsta%201.JPG

Valid reason. That pisses me off too. Of course, I don't riot, though. I just vent about it online. heh

poiuytrewq0987
06-01-2010, 10:51 PM
Valid reason. That pisses me off too. Of course, I don't riot, though. I just vent about it online. heh

Technically Israel is obliged to intercept all attempts to break the blockade. However what's the issue at hand is the legality of the blockade.

Don
06-02-2010, 12:06 AM
Islamic World is not compatible with Western Societies.

Aemma
06-02-2010, 12:30 AM
Islamic World is not compatible with Western Societies.

Well I agree with this to a point: it depends how secularised said Muslim person is in the end. The same can be said for other religions/beliefs systems too however.

Óttar
06-02-2010, 02:34 AM
In a former lifetime I would have argued that such laws are discriminatory against Muslim women. Why allow Sikh men to wear a turban while Muslim women are hindered from wearing their own religious headdress.

It's not religious. Wealthy Near Eastern women have worn veils since ancient Babylon. :coffee:

Aemma
06-02-2010, 02:50 AM
It's not religious. Wealthy Near Eastern women have worn veils since ancient Babylon. :coffee:


Although I can concede some of your point, Ottar, I'm afraid that in the greater scheme of things with respect to the issue of wearing the headdress in Canada at least, the argument is very much made on religious grounds here and not some idea that it is the continuation of a cultural fashion trend. If it were simply that, this issue would already have become a non-issue in my country I would dare say.

As to the specifics of religious headdress, I was also more so alluding to the situation that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had seen itself in some years ago with respect to Sikh men wanting to keep their headdress instead of donning the usual Mountie hat. (There was also the issue of keeping the ceremonial dagger as well but that's a different issue than what we're talking about here.) There are parallels to be drawn with these two examples of human rights cases in terms of examining religious rights in this country anyway.

Óttar
06-02-2010, 03:29 AM
Religious rights should not conflict with the laws of a country. If the veils need to be lifted for ID then they should be taken off for ID photos. Otherwise people can wear what they want, if it does not conflict with the law. I think Sikhs should be able to wear the dastar (turban) because it is innocuous and people can still identify them as Mounties. The kirpans (daggers) on the other hand violate weapon laws. You wouldn't want kids with daggers at school for example. I have seen a most innovative way to get around the kirpan issue by Sikhs wearing a small dagger pendant necklace. It is only mandated to wear a dagger as an outward symbol of martial ethic and readiness to defend the weak.

The irony is, originally Sikhism rebelled against focusing on externals at all. Indeed, it was taught that one's goods and raiment did not set them apart from their neighbors nor make them more pious. Instead there was a calling for developing one's inner connection to God, but nowadays Sikhs have fetishised their external man-made stuff, IMO in direct violation of their founder's teachings, but alas, that's another story.

Grumpy Cat
06-02-2010, 03:39 AM
The kirpans (daggers) on the other hand violate weapon laws. You wouldn't want kids with daggers at school for example.

Kids have been allowed to wear the daggers at schools. There was a debate around it in Canada.

The thing that got me is that Canada has also allowed Sikhs to wear their turban while riding a motorcycle... instead of a helmet. Putting religion above safety is just ridiculous! If you can't wear a helmet for religious reasons, don't ride a motorcycle.

I like Sikhs, much more than I like Muslims admittedly, but they shouldn't have special rights either.

Óttar
06-02-2010, 03:49 AM
Kids have been allowed to wear the daggers at schools. There was a debate around it in Canada.

Supposing it was against the law then daggers should not be allowed even if mandated by religion.


If you can't wear a helmet for religious reasons, don't ride a motorcycle.

I agree. I think the turban is ultimately just a material accoutrement. Unshorn hair on the other hand, is not only a religious mandate, but also part of someone's body/person. I also think all citizens should be allowed to grow long hair and beards for aesthetic reasons as per individual choice, and I am against government forcing someone to cut their hair period, let alone in violation of their religion.

Grumpy Cat
06-02-2010, 03:52 AM
I agree for the most part. I think the turban is ultimately just an accoutrement. Unshorn hair on the other hand, is an innocuous religious mandate. I also think all citizens should be allowed to grow long hair and beards for aesthetic reasons as per individual choice, and I would be against government forcing someone to cut their hair period, let alone in violation of their religion.

I agree. I would not want the government forcing anyone to cut their hair or anything like that.

However, I would not want a person with a long-ass beard preparing my food. So, if an employer tells them to cut the beard, fair game. Long hair is fine it can be tied and put in a hairnet, so whatever.

Óttar
06-02-2010, 03:58 AM
However, I would not want a person with a long-ass beard preparing my food. So, if an employer tells them to cut the beard, fair game.

I disagree here. Employers forcing men to cut their hair either of the head or the face usually has to do with promoting uniformity/submission to authority. I think there should be hairnets made for long beards. :D

Grumpy Cat
06-02-2010, 03:59 AM
I disagree here. Employers forcing men to cut their hair either of the head or the face usually has to do with promoting uniformity/submission to authority. I think there should be hairnets made for long beards. :D

Uh no... If I owned a restaurant it would be for sanitary reasons. :p

Hair + food = :puke:

Óttar
06-02-2010, 04:29 AM
Hair + food = :puke:

More protein! :p

Wölfin
06-02-2010, 08:08 AM
Bah Québecois, especially Montrealais drivers, drive like shit, but after spending a month in Romania and so much time in France I don't notice it anymore :D

And I was quite happy when I heard the news on the radio about this ban. Muslim headgear is not and has never been a requirement according to their Holy Book (it speaks of dressing modestly but not specifically how). When they make this claim and westerners fall for it, they're basically being duped. The West can't afford to be naïve anymore in face of their claims.

Besides my policy in face of immigration has always been the same: immigrants should adapt to their host land, not the other way around.

Óttar
06-02-2010, 07:09 PM
I don't exactly see how wearing hijab affects the host population personally. I can see how covering the face could be an impediment to identification. I wouldn't want them to pass a law saying I couldn't dress in a long kurta - pyjama for example. The latter isn't religious, but it's still a matter of personal choice.

julie
06-02-2010, 07:14 PM
this is great