NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice Says He Does Not Like The Niqab

240 posts / 0 new
Last post
terrytowel
NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice Says He Does Not Like The Niqab

====

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
terrytowel

The Montreal MP does not want the niqab in public service, the majority of Canadians either, he believes. But before legislating, consult.

Says Alexandre Boulerice "The niqab, I do not like it. This is something that shocks. This is something with which we are not accustomed and not at ease."

A few hours later, at the output of Commons, MP went further by opposing unequivocal full veil in public service. " I, like most of my   colleagues, we want to live in a society where people are openly. [...] I think that most people expect to receive public services from someone whose face can be seen"

The day before, its leader Thomas Mulcair had consistently declined to say whether the niqab was acceptable in the public service.

Mr. Boulerice is not going to propose to ask legal guidelines. Above all, Canada should in turn - as did Quebec there are eight years - consult citizens and experts.

"There is a kind of vacuum right now at the federal level. And what we see is conservatives who play on prejudice and amalgams to try to score political points. And that we deplore"

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/434400/port-du-niqab-le-canada-...

Slumberjack

What a bozo.  Because it's always worked well to have individual rights submitted to the opinions of the majority.

Stockholm

I don't "like" the idea of women wearing niqabs either - but I don't think they should be legislated against to score political points.

I also don't "like" polyester pant suits...but I think people who wear them should be allowed to exist

terrytowel

Stockholm wrote:

I don't "like" the idea of women wearing niqabs either - but I don't think they should be legislated against to score political points.

I also don't "like" polyester pant suits...but I think people who wear them should be allowed to exist

Yeah but would you advocate Public Service workers NOT to wear the niqab?

Stockholm

Its kind of academic. Women who are traditionalist enough to wear niqabs do not have jobs. It would be impossible to serve the public wearing a niqab anyways - do you seriously expect a surgeon who is a niqab wearing woman to perform open heart surgery while covering her entire face? Would you expect someone wearing a full niqab to be a traffic cop or a high school gym teacher?

 

Caissa

I receive public service from people whose face I don't see everytime I interact with a public servant by phone or eamil.  Boulerice is an idiot!

terrytowel

Stockholm wrote:

 do you seriously expect a surgeon who is a niqab wearing woman to perform open heart surgery while covering her entire face?

Surgeons already cover their entire face, including wearing protective eye wear.

Get with the program Stockhom!

lagatta

Since I know that Boulerice is not an idiot, as I supposed the actual interview responses were far more nuanced:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54sLPFAeNu4&feature=youtu.be

I don't like niqab either. Boulerice pointed out that he had never seen a woman in a citizenship ceremony wearng niqab, that this is a distraction from the real issues facing women and that all of this will have to conform to the Charter.

Note, of course, that interviewer Mario Dumont is a rightwing demagogue (see video clips at right side of screen).

voice of the damned

Stockholm wrote:
Women who are traditionalist enough to wear niqabs do not have jobs.

Well...

http://tinyurl.com/kgvjtel

Unionist

Boulerice stands head and shoulders above almost all other MPs (including his leader) on any question of democracy and human rights. He is no "idiot", nor is he a racist. He doesn't like the niqab, and he says so.

Before condemning him, perhaps recall that Mulcair supported the recommendations of the Bouchard-Taylor commission. That included items such as teachers not covering their faces. And public servants in positions of coercive authority not wearing identifiable religious symbols (judges, cops, prison guards, etc.). So did Ignatieff. So did the Charest government, which tabled Bill 94 that would have prohibited covering one's face while delivering or receiving any governmental service.

Attacking Boulerice over his honest expression of views (which I share - so attack me) is a nice trap to fall into. Avoid that trap.

 

terrytowel

Unionist wrote:

Boulerice stands head and shoulders above almost all other MPs (including his leader) on any question of democracy and human rights. He is no "idiot", nor is he a racist. He doesn't like the niqab, and he says so.

Before condemning him, perhaps recall that Mulcair supported the recommendations of the Bouchard-Taylor commission. That included items such as teachers not covering their faces. And public servants in positions of coercive authority not wearing identifiable religious symbols (judges, cops, prison guards, etc.). So did Ignatieff. So did the Charest government, which tabled Bill 94 that would have prohibited covering one's face while delivering or receiving any governmental service.

Attacking Boulerice over his honest expression of views (which I share - so attack me) is a nice trap to fall into. Avoid that trap.

So you expect people working in the public service NOT to be wearing a Niqab, correct?

wage zombie

Obvious troll thread.

terrytowel

wage zombie wrote:

Obvious troll thread.

Wage Zombie are you saying the Quebec media SHOULD NOT have printed this story?

Interesting that people are defending Boulrice, which is great.

But when asked point blank, do you support public servants NOT wearing the Niqab, there is nothing silence on their end.

I think people should be free to wear what they want, including public servants. If they want to wear the Niqab, so be it.

Anyone one else?

clambake

I'm reserving my opinion until I hear what Chantal Hebert of the The Best Political Team on Television has to say about it.

terrytowel

clambake wrote:
I'm reserving my opinion until I hear what Chantal Hebert of the {i}The Best Political Team on Television{/i} has to say about it.

RIGHT ON!

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
Attacking Boulerice over his honest expression of views (which I share - so attack me) is a nice trap to fall into. Avoid that trap. 

Are you running for public office?  There is a sentiment out there that shouldn't be pandered to and it is only right to question a politicians motives when they wade into a debate that is already well underway with sides drawn up.

NorthReport

Close to half of Torontonians polled find niqab oppressive to women: Forum Research

A new Forum Research poll conducted exclusively for CityNews shows that most Torontonians oppose allowing women to wear the niqab during citizenship ceremonies (57 per cent) and close to half (46 per cent) find the niqab oppressive to women.

The random sampling of 454 Toronto voters showed that close to one fifth have negative feelings about Muslim people (18 per cent).

Slide1


http://www.citynews.ca/2015/03/12/close-to-half-of-torontonians-polled-f...

Pondering

I don't think public servants should be wearing a niqab but I don't think there should be a law against it. It's almost a trick question. Do you think public servants should be allowed to wear bikinis, or man thongs to work? Do we need a law? I'm with Wage Zombie on this one. It's a troll question, however, politicians should know how to answer it.

 

 

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Boulerice stands head and shoulders above almost all other MPs (including his leader) on any question of democracy and human rights. He is no "idiot", nor is he a racist. He doesn't like the niqab, and he says so.

Before condemning him, perhaps recall that Mulcair supported the recommendations of the Bouchard-Taylor commission. That included items such as teachers not covering their faces. And public servants in positions of coercive authority not wearing identifiable religious symbols (judges, cops, prison guards, etc.). So did Ignatieff. So did the Charest government, which tabled Bill 94 that would have prohibited covering one's face while delivering or receiving any governmental service.

Attacking Boulerice over his honest expression of views (which I share - so attack me) is a nice trap to fall into. Avoid that trap.

So you expect people working in the public service NOT to be wearing a Niqab, correct?

You tell me where I said that, before I submit to further cross-examination.

I'm pointing out that all these glorious political parties have, in the very recent past, supported the results of a commission which made various statements.

Hold them to account. Not me, not Boulerice. Go after the big fish. And tell me your opinion. Do you think public school teachers should be allowed to cover their faces? How about judges? Let me know.

You can deal with my opinions, and/or you can deal with the public statements of Charest, Mulcair, Marois, Ignatieff, Trudeau, etc. Don't confound the two. Thank you.

cassius

Cassius:

The MP is right. Someone wearing a niqab should not get a job meeting the public. It's not part of our culture to be obliged to converse with someone whose face is masked. I can understand why Boulrice says the veil is frightening. I share the view. The niqab is a symbol of a cultural inability to deal maturely with the sexuality of women. If the niqab-wearer were applying for a behind-the-scenes job, that is another matter. These are, however, not hypothetical questions. These issues are going to bedevil us until we draw sharp lines between secular and religious rights. They have already. At York U., a male student, presumably Moslem, demanded and was unfortunately given the right to attend male-only classes; female students were rescheduled elsewhere. Professors who spoke out against this were ignored. 

 

cassius

Cassius:

The MP is right. Someone wearing a niqab should not get a job meeting the public. It's not part of our culture to be obliged to converse with someone whose face is masked. I can understand why Boulrice says the veil is frightening. I share the view. The niqab is a symbol of a cultural inability to deal maturely with the sexuality of women. If the niqab-wearer were applying for a behind-the-scenes job, that is another matter. These are, however, not hypothetical questions. These issues are going to bedevil us until we draw sharp lines between secular and religious rights. They have already. At York U., a male student, presumably Moslem, demanded and was unfortunately given the right to attend male-only classes; female students were rescheduled elsewhere. Professors who spoke out against this were ignored. 

 

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

I think people should be free to wear what they want, including public servants.

So you think kindergarten teachers should be allowed to let their genitals hang out of their pants, while wearing a Hitler moustache and swastikas on their sleeves?

Hurry up, answer fast, otherwise you will be accused of meeting these important social and political questions with "silence".

[Sorry, I'm just trying to get into your prosecutorial cross-examination style.]

lagatta

There are dress codes against bikinis and thongs (the swimwear) at work, even in casual-dress workplaces. Dress codes are supposed to accommodate religious beliefs (and disabilities) but there is always a matter of what accommodation is reasonable.

I can think of a very specific problem in terms of niqab - members of the public who are deaf or hard of hearing and who rely on reading lips to some extent to understand speech.

The problem, of course, is Harper using this as a wedge issue (oops, thongs again...) and if I recall Boulerice said so in that interview. It targets a specific group - not just the tiny handful of niqabis but Muslims and "brown people" in general and is also a distraction to all the HarperCons' attacks on women"s rights.

By the way, Alexandre has always put an emphasis on taking action on issues involving immigrants and "visible minorities" in our riding.

bekayne
terrytowel

Unionist wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

I think people should be free to wear what they want, including public servants.

So you think kindergarten teachers should be allowed to let their genitals hang out of their pants, while wearing a Hitler moustache and swastikas on their sleeves?

Hurry up, answer fast, otherwise you will be accused of meeting these important social and political questions with "silence".

[Sorry, I'm just trying to get into your prosecutorial cross-examination style.]

Sorry I was out grocery shopping.

You are deflecting as this is about the Niqab

Last time I checked being nude or wearing a "Hitler moustache and swastikas on their sleeves" are not religious symbols. Which is just you deflecting.

Simple question. Do you think Public Servants should be able to wear the Niqab?

Instead of answering the question, you deflect. Dishing it out, but not answering.

This is a DISCUSSION board btw. Not answering the question and just deflecting speaks volumes on your credibility.

Now I'm going to have lunch, if that is okay?

Sean in Ottawa

I don't like the Niqab either but that is not the point as I am not wearing one.

I don't care if someone accessing public services wears one which sets me Boulerice apart from Conservatives and some others.

The question of what a person PROVIDING a public service should wear is different. Their rights must balance those of the public. It has been pointed out that there could be issues of access reading lips etc. Then what is the message being sent to women who access a civil service employee wearing this-- can they have confidence that their concerns and rights will be taken seriously?

As others have pointed out -- how many people applying to the civil service would wear a Niqab? If it is such a small number must they be with access to the public in person? How many more positions are available?

I don't know what the answer is with respect to that balance and that is what Boulerice is struggling with.

Perhaps the answer is that a person wearing a Niqab should not work as a front-line worker to the public but could work in any other positions including on the phone provided nobody in the same section has a need to read lips.

I personally would not object to working with a person who wore the Niqab.

It does not mean I have to like it or anything it represents. But my feelings do not extend to what someone else may wear.

It seems to me that this MP is thinking specifically about in-person public contact. On this specific point I am glad I don't have to make the decision or be accountable on this point --  I see conflicts in terms of rights on both sides so I can only imagine accomodations rather than open permission or prohibition. I appreciate how he is framing this as an opinion rather than something else.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

clambake wrote:
I'm reserving my opinion until I hear what Chantal Hebert of the The Best Political Team on Television has to say about it.

LaughingLaughingLaughing

Rokossovsky

I think we should mandate a dress code for civil servants who are in front-line public service position, where they wear a big red nose, white face makeup and an orange wig, because I think its important for people to be able to get a clear view of who they are dealing with when dealing with government.

Aristotleded24

Rokossovsky wrote:
I think we should mandate a dress code for civil servants who are in front-line public service position, where they wear a big red nose, white face makeup and an orange wig, because I think its important for people to be able to get a clear view of who they are dealing with when dealing with government.

LOL!

Debater

Controversy over face-covering niqab exposes rift in federal NDP caucus

The Canadian Press 

Friday, March 13, 2015

OTTAWA - Controversy over the face-covering niqab worn by some Muslim women is exposing a rift among New Democrat MPs.

Alexandre Boulerice, one of the party's most prominent Quebec MPs, says he doesn't believe public servants should be allowed to cover their faces.

And he wants to create a national commission, along the lines of Quebec's Bouchard-Taylor commission, to seek consensus on how far the country should go to accommodate religious and cultural practices.

But Winnipeg NDP MP Pat Martin says he doesn't care if public servants wear a paper bag on their head.

Paul Dewar, whose central Ottawa riding is home to many federal civil servants, says Boulerice seems to be trying to resolve a problem that doesn't exist.

He says he's never had a complaint about public servants wearing face-covering garments.

---

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/controversy-over-face-covering-niqab-exposes-...

Sean in Ottawa

I don't know if there are ANY public servants who wear the Niqab or any people who have ever applied for a job with the public service who do.

That does not mean that it is completely unreasonable for AB to consider the question especially if he were asked.

NorthReport

This nonsense has created quite the diversion for the Conservatives with their Bill C51, the war in Iraq, the economy, etc. Harper must be very pleased.

onlinediscountanvils

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It has been pointed out that there could be issues of access reading lips etc. Then what is the message being sent to women who access a civil service employee wearing this-- can they have confidence that their concerns and rights will be taken seriously?

Is everyone in the public service functionally bilingual in French and English? If not, maybe that's a hint at how the rights of people with disabilities can be respected without trampling on the rights of another group of oppressed people.

Maybe we should start a petition to demand that all frontline government services that are currently staffed entirely by women wearing niqabs, should be required to have at least one non-niqab-wearing person on staff in order to accomodate people who are deaf or hearing impaired.

 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Perhaps the answer is that a person wearing a Niqab should not work as a front-line worker to the public but could work in any other positions including on the phone provided nobody in the same section has a need to read lips.

It's sad that nearly two decades after Reform MP, Bob Ringma's "back of the shop" comments, assholes like Boulerice are still trying to make reasonable accomodation for bigots.

NorthReport

On the niqab, I’m with Quebec – and with Stephen Harper

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/on-the-niqab-im-with-quebec-...

pookie

Boulerice is free to advocate for such a policy.  But why does any politican feel the need to say he or she "doesn't like" the niqab?  Why the fuck should we care? In what way is that relevant, other than siding against those who wear it?

Reprehensible.

Unionist

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

It's sad that nearly two decades after Reform MP, Bob Ringma's "back of the shop" comments, assholes like Boulerice are still trying to make reasonable accomodation for bigots.

So you can side with the pro-Israel pro-imperialist Dewar and Pat Martin, and I'll side with the "asshole" Boulerice. You should really get a grip.

lagatta

Boulerice is the last thing from a bigot.

I suspect that this once again illustrates the cultural divide on these issues between Québec and English Canada. Oddly, a similar divide is found between France and the UK - I mean among progressives.

Québec solidaire, which had many strong criticisms of the PQ Charter, also thinks that government services should be provided and ideally received with face exposed.

Unionist

lagatta wrote:

Boulerice is the last thing from a bigot.

I suspect that this once again illustrates the cultural divide on these issues between Québec and English Canada. Oddly, a similar divide is found between France and the UK - I mean among progressives.

Québec solidaire, which had many strong criticisms of the PQ Charter, also thinks that government services should be provided and ideally received with face exposed.

There's no cultural divide. There's only progressives, both here and in "English" Canada, who get diverted the instant some reactionary swine like Harper or Mario Dumont or Bernard Drainville or Justin Trudeau says, "Time to fight each other, suckers!"

I wish all the best to those who want to fight over whether people have an innate human right to cover their faces or not. They must have a lot of time on their hands. Harper vs. Pat Martin and Paul Dewar. Tough pick. I wish all three a pox on their houses.

 

 

NorthReport

Do we really need to throw around terms like racist and bigot so carelessly?

Or is this just another perceived opportunity by Liberals to bash Quebecers or the NPD?

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

It's sad that nearly two decades after Reform MP, Bob Ringma's "back of the shop" comments, assholes like Boulerice are still trying to make reasonable accomodation for bigots.

NorthReport

Hijab-wearing woman deeply grateful but turns down money from crowdfunding

“I believe that these funds can be put to better use helping those whose rights have been forfeited and stories left untold.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/03/13/hijab-wearing-woman-deeply...

Sean in Ottawa

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It has been pointed out that there could be issues of access reading lips etc. Then what is the message being sent to women who access a civil service employee wearing this-- can they have confidence that their concerns and rights will be taken seriously?

Is everyone in the public service functionally bilingual in French and English? If not, maybe that's a hint at how the rights of people with disabilities can be respected without trampling on the rights of another group of oppressed people.

Maybe we should start a petition to demand that all frontline government services that are currently staffed entirely by women wearing niqabs, should be required to have at least one non-niqab-wearing person on staff in order to accomodate people who are deaf or hearing impaired.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Perhaps the answer is that a person wearing a Niqab should not work as a front-line worker to the public but could work in any other positions including on the phone provided nobody in the same section has a need to read lips.

It's sad that nearly two decades after Reform MP, Bob Ringma's "back of the shop" comments, assholes like Boulerice are still trying to make reasonable accomodation for bigots.

I can see the first point with respect to access - so long as the person is not the only available person for an in-person availability.

I'm unsure of how women may feel about the message of federal government services being delivered by a woman wearing a Niqab. Would this be a strike against equality or a sign of tolerance? (Perhaps that is AB's motivation.) If women do not see this as a sign of a setback in equality or as an unwelcome reminder of the oppression of women, is there any reasonable objection?

What is at stake for men in this debate is nothing. If this is the sole consideration, this should be discussed by women rather than men. However, Boulerice is an MP, he is required to hear from constituents who are women and reflect their concerns.

Normally a compromise between conflicting human rights should be determined by a court. It is offensive to resolve issues of human rights by vote of the majority.

Courts, however, may be very reluctant to draw that line in this case. A discussion among women's rights advocates could inform a political direction if this must be decided politically. Since I do not speak for any women (I am not elected to anything), I am happy to see the discussion determined by women.

 

 

Unionist

What an amazing woman. The NDP should woo her to be a candidate. Let Harper promote his invasion of Iraq and Syria, his Bill C-51, his Islamophobia, and his contempt for women by arguing about niqabs.

Thanks for the link, NorthReport.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Debater wrote:

OTTAWA - Controversy over the face-covering niqab worn by some Muslim women is exposing a rift among New Democrat MPs.

Alexandre Boulerice, one of the party's most prominent Quebec MPs, says he doesn't believe public servants should be allowed to cover their faces.

And he wants to create a national commission, along the lines of Quebec's Bouchard-Taylor commission, to seek consensus on how far the country should go to accommodate religious and cultural practices.

Stupid stupid stupid.  Does he not get that his demand feeds anti- Muslim sentiment and serves to promote the imperial war effort? One more reason to not vote fot the NDP. If the NDP's brightest stars can't keep from getting caught in the PMO's racist games then why bother with them. 

We are into perpetual war and the NDP supports 95% of everything NATO does.  Boulerice should try talking about perpetual war instead of demanding minority women be stripped of their right to modesty. I believe women should have the right to wear lewd clothing in public or modest clothing as they see fit. I think women should decide for themselves whether they cover their bodies including their faces, for whatever reason. Brown women of non-Xian religions don't deserve the shit that white male Xians dish out to them.

However the NDP did vote for the intercultural integration model at its last convention so it doesn't surprise me. Martin and Dewar probably didn't have a clue what it meant when it became a core NDP belief.

Unionist you praise Boulerice while asserting that people should not talk about male circumsicion because it is just an anti-Semitic talking point. Why can't you see that this is the same thing only the racist talking point is directed at minority women instead of semetic males.

NorthReport

Stephen Harper’s niqab comments spark Tory consternation: Hébert

After the prime minister said the niqab is rooted in a culture that is “anti-women,” confusion ensued within government ranks

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/03/13/stephen-harpers-niqab-comm...

genstrike

I find it a little strange how even a lot of people who are arguing against any sort of ban feel the need to emphasize their own personal disapproval of the niqab.

I mean, it would be considered slightly rude (to say the least) for me to start a sentence with "I don't like turbans, but..." or "I don't like yarmulkes, but..." in the presence of a Sikh or a devout yarmulke-wearing Jew, wouldn't it?

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist you praise Boulerice while asserting that people should not talk about male circumsicion because it is just an anti-Semitic talking point. Why can't you see that this is the same thing only the racist talking point is directed at minority women instead of semetic males.

Because Boulerice defends minority women against racist attacks, condemned the racist "Charter" of the PQ, etc.

People can talk about male circumcision all they want. But for progressives to demand an end to male mutilation (which is the stupidity that was being pushed here) feeds into racist diversion, just as much as Pauline Marois's "fire the women who won't remove their hijabs".

If all this means I have to defend the right of people to wear niqabs whenever they want - sorry, that's never going to happen. You want to teach kids? Show your face. Got a problem with that, kropotkin?

And will I make that a political platform? Not on your life. We have important things to do. Niqabs, worn or shorn, don't fall into that category.

Unionist

genstrike wrote:

I find it a little strange how even a lot of people who are arguing against any sort of ban feel the need to emphasize their own personal disapproval of the niqab.

I mean, it would be considered slightly rude (to say the least) for me to start a sentence with "I don't like turbans, but..." or "I don't like yarmulkes, but..." in the presence of a Sikh or a devout yarmulke-wearing Jew, wouldn't it?

If you can't tell the difference between male religious headgear vs. turning women into invisible chattel, then maybe you should consider the question a bit more.

Unless, of course, you can produce examples of males who feel the need to express their inalienable individuality by hiding their face in public, except in front of other men.

Pat Martin says he doesn't care what anyone wears when they're swearing the citizenship oath. He's the same xenophobic colonial bastard who has been putting forward private member's bills, for at least a decade, to force MPs to swear allegiance to Canada. He's also a proud inveterate member of the defunct CPCCA. I'm happy to oppose absolutely everything he stands for - including the "right" to be invisible.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'm unsure of how women may feel about the message of federal government services being delivered by a woman wearing a Niqab. Would this be a strike against equality or a sign of tolerance?

If a niqab is just another article of clothing then why should we be specifically interested in what women who don't wear one think of it?

And if it's a sign of oppression that's being enabled under cover of religious tolerance, why shouldn't EVERY Canadian be entitled to their opinion of it?

Quote:
I mean, it would be considered slightly rude (to say the least) for me to start a sentence with "I don't like turbans, but..." or "I don't like yarmulkes, but..." in the presence of a Sikh or a devout yarmulke-wearing Jew, wouldn't it?

Perhaps.  Was Boulerice in the presence of a niqab-wearing woman?

Quote:
“I believe that these funds can be put to better use helping those whose rights have been forfeited and stories left untold.”

Props for that.  Her input into where the funds get allocated would seem appropriate.

Sean in Ottawa

genstrike wrote:

I find it a little strange how even a lot of people who are arguing against any sort of ban feel the need to emphasize their own personal disapproval of the niqab.

I mean, it would be considered slightly rude (to say the least) for me to start a sentence with "I don't like turbans, but..." or "I don't like yarmulkes, but..." in the presence of a Sikh or a devout yarmulke-wearing Jew, wouldn't it?

Did I miss any trade off or representation of oppression of women with any of these other things?

I don't like the Niqab because of its association with inequality between genders.

And please don't conflate dislike (personal opinion/feeling/comfort) and disaproval (judgment of/for others)-- they are quite different -- and that is why I implied that my dislike is not as relevant since I don't wear one (and as a man it does not affect me directly). I have further qualified this by stating that since my dscomfort is based on equality, I am content to support what a consensus of women's advocates determines.

And to be clear -- I raised no issues with a Hijab which would be a better comparison to your list.

All that said I get why an MP who would have spoken to many constituents would want to take a stronger position than a man, like myself, who does not represent both female constituents and minority constituents.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And if it's a sign of oppression that's being enabled under cover of religious tolerance, why shouldn't EVERY Canadian be entitled to their opinion of it?

Because it is up to women, not men, to decide if they feel oppressed by it.

I personally am not oppressed.

I do care if women are oppressed.

So I ask does this oppress? and the only qualified answers would be from women since I don't accept that men can be oppressed by the Niqab.

Does that make sense to you?

Pages