NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice Says He Does Not Like The Niqab

240 posts / 0 new
Last post
onlinediscountanvils

Unionist wrote:

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.

Yeah, 'cause that's what I said.

Get a grip yourself, Unionist.

Unionist

You called Boulerice an "asshole", oda. You are mistaken. He courageously opposed (and ran a petition against) the Israeli massacre in Gaza, even when his leader was saying nothing on the issue. If you call him an "asshole" because he doesn't like niqabs, then you and I are on different sides of the trenches. That's not fatal in and of itself, but you might as well understand, really really clearly, what my priorities are in life.

 

NDPP

I am delighted to be able to send much of this Niqab nastiness to international friends who immediately apprehend the kind of pro-Zionist, rapidly Islamophobic dung-heap of a racist settler-state this country is. These pathologies are immediately obvious to those who encounter Canadian media on these issues, but apparently not to those who live and breathe this shit and have come to accept it as a tolerable norm, even 'progressive'  As to attempts here to rationalize, legitimize and Can-splain it away, Beckett said it best:

"No one that ever lived ever thought so crooked as we".

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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.

It's up to "women" to decide? Would that be all women, Muslim women, or each individual woman?

I believe that all women should have equal rights with men, whether individual women want equality or not.

I believe all workers in a unionized workplace should pay union dues, whether they feel like it or not.

Call me male chauvinist if you like.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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

Wait.  What?

Women who don't wear one are oppressed by it??

Quote:
Does that make sense to you?

That it's not your business, since you don't wear one, makes sense.

That it IS non-Muslim women's business, when they don't wear one... no.

onlinediscountanvils

Unionist wrote:

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.

...calls for [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/13/ndp-niqab-alexandre-boulerice_n_..."the establishment of a national commission on reasonable accommodation"[/url], etc.

He's an asshole.

genstrike

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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

It's a public statement to the media.  Undoubtedly, at least one niqab-wearing woman watches the news.

Sean in Ottawa

I have heard quite a few women who do not wear the Niqab saying that it is a symbol of oppression -- I am not qualified to judge this statement since I cannot relate to it. Call it a recognition of privelege if you like. I don't understand the argument but am not in a position to dismiss it.

So let women's advocates inform this to say if other women wearing the Niqab is a women's rights issue for them.

Then, as I said, if it is found there is a conflict in rights a court must determine an answer as human rights issues should not be put to majority vote.

What is wrong with that?

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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.

It's up to "women" to decide? Would that be all women, Muslim women, or each individual woman?

I believe that all women should have equal rights with men, whether individual women want equality or not.

I believe all workers in a unionized workplace should pay union dues, whether they feel like it or not.

Call me male chauvinist if you like.

You know we both agree that unionization should be for all workers.

I think the case, if there is one to make, about women's oppression should be made by women not men. And the issue of all women is not relevant as if the argument is made then it should be decided ultimately by a court -- human rights should never be decided by votes.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think the case, if there is one to make, about women's oppression should be made by women not men.

Wrong. You're in the workers' movement as much as I am. We all fight, as workers, for equality, for an end to oppression. I can't believe you just said that.

Quote:
And the issue of all women is not relevant as if the argument is made then it should be decided ultimately by a court -- human rights should never be decided by votes.

There is no "human rights" issue here. Next you'll tell me that some people like to sell themselves as slaves, so those of us who aren't slave should have no say in the matter. Wrong. We are not libertarians.

Unionist

 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think the case, if there is one to make, about women's oppression should be made by women not men.

Wrong. You're in the workers' movement as much as I am. We all fight, as workers, for equality, for an end to oppression. I can't believe you just said that.

Quote:
And the issue of all women is not relevant as if the argument is made then it should be decided ultimately by a court -- human rights should never be decided by votes.

I find it disturbing that first you said it's up to women - now you're apparently saying it's up to individuals. Next you'll tell me that some people like to sell themselves as slaves, so those of us who aren't slaves should have no say in the matter? Wrong. We are not libertarians.

 

Unionist

genstrike wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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

It's a public statement to the media.  Undoubtedly, at least one niqab-wearing woman watches the news.

I will bet any amount of money that you don't know any.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I have heard quite a few women who do not wear the Niqab saying that it is a symbol of oppression -- I am not qualified to judge this statement since I cannot relate to it.

Oppression of whom?  The woman wearing the niqab, or the woman saying it's a symbol of oppression?

Quote:

Then, as I said, if it is found there is a conflict in rights a court must determine an answer as human rights issues should not be put to majority vote.

What is wrong with that?

For starters, you seem to be saying that:

1.  this shouldn't be up to a vote

2.  only women should have a vote

Debater

It's hard to know how these issues will unfold.

There's a difference between people being opposed to religious clothing or polls that say such bans are popular and the way people end up voting.

As Chantal Hébert said on CBC last night, the PQ Charter of Values on religious clothing was supposedly popular in Québec according to the polls last year.  Yet by the end of the election, Pauline Marois & the PQ suffered a big defeat.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think the case, if there is one to make, about women's oppression should be made by women not men.

Wrong. You're in the workers' movement as much as I am. We all fight, as workers, for equality, for an end to oppression. I can't believe you just said that.

Quote:
And the issue of all women is not relevant as if the argument is made then it should be decided ultimately by a court -- human rights should never be decided by votes.

I find it disturbing that first you said it's up to women - now you're apparently saying it's up to individuals. Next you'll tell me that some people like to sell themselves as slaves, so those of us who aren't slaves should have no say in the matter? Wrong. We are not libertarians.

 

Making a request for justice and fighting for justice is two separate things.

We hear that some women who consider the Niqab to be the oppression of women and hurtful to them. Others assert the right to wear one. Who do we fight in solidarity with? Both are drowned out by mostly men with political agendas. How many really want to assert a right in conflict? Do women who wear the Niqab want to work in the public service? Do women who use services really feel harmed by women providing those services wearing a Niqab? Can you hear the answer for sure through the noise?

It is not up to me to tell one side or the other that they do not count. I am not affected by either. Should I be fighting for some right that the people affected do not care about?

It is not up to men to tell women which women's rights should be fought for and which should be ignored or dismissed.

At some point you have to hear from the people asserting their rights and back them not explain to them which of their rights you are here to fight for. What if most women's advocates said that the Niqab issue was a distraction from more important rights questions and that women are not negatively impacted by other women wearing the Niqab?

At this point we hear a lot about how oppressive the Niqab is to women. Most of the people saying that are men. I am saying tune that out and let's hear what women's advocates are saying. Is there a case? If there is we should not determine this though popularity contest (vote) but interpretation through courts based on fundamental human rights.

If women don't care and are unbothered from an equality point of view by other women wearing the Niqab then no, I am not interested in that fight becuase some other man tells me that we must fight it on behalf of women (maybe becuase he has a problem with muslims).

So yes, if oppression of women is the problem then let's hear that from women. Then we can fight it together.

 

Unionist

You didn't even address a fraction of my questions.

Should we respect an individual slave's "right" to be a slave? Or is society entitled to ban slavery, and fuck the slave who enjoys it as a personal right?

Should we allow teachers to hide their faces in public schools?

My answer is clear: No, never.

What's yours?

 

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I have heard quite a few women who do not wear the Niqab saying that it is a symbol of oppression -- I am not qualified to judge this statement since I cannot relate to it.

Oppression of whom?  The woman wearing the niqab, or the woman saying it's a symbol of oppression?

Quote:

Then, as I said, if it is found there is a conflict in rights a court must determine an answer as human rights issues should not be put to majority vote.

What is wrong with that?

For starters, you seem to be saying that:

1.  this shouldn't be up to a vote

2.  only women should have a vote

No clearly that is not the case.

I am saying the assertion of a problem should come from someone who has the grievance not others using it to advance a different platform like intolerance.

We are already in agreement that to ban a Niqab is a challenge to a human right. Correct?

So we hear that women wearing the Niqab is a problem for women's equality. Let's hear if this is coming from women. If not then end the discussion there. If anyone is to make the case it should be women.

But if they claim a grievance it should be referred to a court based on a determination of law and human rights not a popular vote among men or women or both.

josh

You cannot be soft on nigabs. It's a serious and growing problem. If left unchecked, the terrorists will win.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

You didn't even address a fraction of my questions.

Should we respect an individual slave's "right" to be a slave? Or is society entitled to ban slavery, and fuck the slave who enjoys it as a personal right?

Should we allow teachers to hide their faces in public schools?

My answer is clear: No, never.

What's yours?

 

I am assuming that you have already spoken to enough women who wear the Niqab to know that they are all coerced. I haven't so I cannot skip over that step.

Your question is false logic. A person who is enslaved is by definition forced against their will so there is no such thing as someone who wants to be enslaved.

Does every person who wears the Niqab do so becuase they are forced to do so? I don't know. Do you? I don't understand why they would want to but I am not them. If even one woman wants the Niqab for any reason it is not my role to tell her she cannot have it or to fight for the right to make her do what she does not want to do.

If someone is forced to wear the Niqab who does not want to then that should be illegal no matter what the environment. If a person is forced to wear the Niqab -- or to remove it -- against their will I would think that is an assault. We already have laws for that and should enforce them if required.

Teachers wearing the Niqab? Are we talking about in public school or in a minority school for kids whose mothers wear the Niqab?

Would I have liked my daughter to go to school to a teacher who wore the Niqab? No. I would want the option to opt out. I can provide reasons for that choice. But if there were poeople who did not have a problem with it why should my choice be imposed unless a case has been made on the basis of women's equality, for which I am by definition not an expert?

Again the basis of advocacy is someone or some group who claims to be affected asserts a grievance. Others fight for their rights.

Do we have the case of even one teacher who wants to wear the Niqab? Who are we fighting for and who are we fighting against? And why?

I would guess if there are teachers who wear the Niqab they are unlikely to want to teach in a public school but if you can think of one example please provide it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I am saying the assertion of a problem should come from someone who has the grievance not others using it to advance a different platform like intolerance.

So... non-Muslim women have the grievance?

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

You didn't even address a fraction of my questions.

Should we respect an individual slave's "right" to be a slave? Or is society entitled to ban slavery, and fuck the slave who enjoys it as a personal right?

Should we allow teachers to hide their faces in public schools?

My answer is clear: No, never.

What's yours?

 

I am assuming that you have already spoken to enough women who wear the Niqab to know that they are all coerced. I haven't so I cannot skip over that step.

I actually don't care if they're coerced or not. I oppose teachers covering their faces. And you?

Quote:
Your question is false logic. A person who is enslaved is by definition forced against their will so there is no such thing as someone who wants to be enslaved.

That's ahistorical crap. Lots of people will have historically told you they love their status. We don't care. We force equality upon them. We don't allow individuals to (for example) renounce their right to freedom of expression. Read the Charter.

Quote:
Does every person who wears the Niqab do so becuase they are forced to do so?

I don't care.

Quote:
If even one woman wants the Niqab for any reason it is not my role to tell her she cannot have it or to fight for the right to make her do what she does not want to do.

She may want to expose her genitals or wear swastikas too. She can't teach children in public schools. Or can she?

Quote:
Teachers wearing the Niqab? Are we talking about in public school or in a minority school for kids whose mothers wear the Niqab?

Public schools. Your reply, please?

Quote:
Would I have liked my daughter to go to school to a teacher who wore the Niqab? No. I would want the option to opt out. I can provide reasons for that choice.

I strongly disagree with parents' "rights" to determine what is best for their children. Why are you personalizing this? How can you "opt" your daughter out of anything? Would you like parents to have the right to opt their children out of classes about sex? Evolution?

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

"Harper on Tuesday upped the ante in the government’s opposition to wearing the face covering at citizenship ceremonies, declaring that the practice of wearing a niqab is “rooted in a culture that is anti-women. That is unacceptable to Canadians, unacceptable to Canadian women.”"

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/03/13/tories-let-niqabs-sidetrac...

Is it really that wrong to say Harper is not the one I want to hear speak for women?

I'll join the barracades for women's rights but the call to arms will be from women speaking as women's advocates not Harper.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

You didn't even address a fraction of my questions.

Should we respect an individual slave's "right" to be a slave? Or is society entitled to ban slavery, and fuck the slave who enjoys it as a personal right?

Should we allow teachers to hide their faces in public schools?

My answer is clear: No, never.

What's yours?

 

I am assuming that you have already spoken to enough women who wear the Niqab to know that they are all coerced. I haven't so I cannot skip over that step.

I actually don't care if they're coerced or not. I oppose teachers covering their faces. And you?

Quote:
Your question is false logic. A person who is enslaved is by definition forced against their will so there is no such thing as someone who wants to be enslaved.

That's ahistorical crap. Lots of people will have historically told you they love their status. We don't care. We force equality upon them. We don't allow individuals to (for example) renounce their right to freedom of expression. Read the Charter.

Quote:
Does every person who wears the Niqab do so becuase they are forced to do so?

I don't care.

Quote:
If even one woman wants the Niqab for any reason it is not my role to tell her she cannot have it or to fight for the right to make her do what she does not want to do.

She may want to expose her genitals or wear swastikas too. She can't teach children in public schools. Or can she?

Quote:
Teachers wearing the Niqab? Are we talking about in public school or in a minority school for kids whose mothers wear the Niqab?

Public schools. Your reply, please?

Quote:
Would I have liked my daughter to go to school to a teacher who wore the Niqab? No. I would want the option to opt out. I can provide reasons for that choice.

I strongly disagree with parents' "rights" to determine what is best for their children. Why are you personalizing this? How can you "opt" your daughter out of anything? Would you like parents to have the right to opt their children out of classes about sex? Evolution?

Classes about sex or evolution, no.

Public schools -- again I find it quite difificult that this would even come up. Has it ever?

Elementary-middle school I am inclined to say no. High school? I don't have an answer right off. Perhaps I could be convinced. I would have to hear the teacher describe how she would explain it.

How about university? Can you justify a ban at that level? Why?

Again I am saying this on my own. If I heard a good case for it from women's advocacy groups I may be convinced but mostly I hear men who hate muslims saying this. (like Harper not present company)

lagatta

This was not a policy statement. It was an appearance on a TV show run by a demagogue.

I'm laughing because I think this kerfuffle will have absolutely no impact on Boulerice's chances in the next elections. Those of us who know him (and I am NOT an NDP member) know that he has a very long record of defending immigrant and minority rights. 

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Classes about sex or evolution, no.

Good. Because in Québec, we shut down schools that refuse to teach sex ed or evolution.

Quote:
Public schools -- again I find it quite difificult that this would even come up. Has it ever?

Why wouldn't it come up? What kind of reply is that that? I've stated my view - contrary to Mr. terrytowel, who was provoking everyone to give an opinion. What's yours?

Quote:
Elementary-middle school I am inclined to say no.

Good. I agree. How do you justify your response?

Quote:
High school? I don't have an answer right off. Perhaps I could be convinced. I would have to hear the teacher describe how she would explain it.

Use your imagination. "I'm just expressing my individuality"? Go express your invisibility somewhere else.

Quote:
How about university? Can you justify a ban at that level? Why?

Nope. No holds barred in university. That's a great place for people to debate why some women hide their faces while their husbands, fathers, and brothers wouldn't dream of doing likewise. I'm ready for that debate. But tuition should be free. Agree?

Quote:
Again I am saying this on my own. If I heard a good case for it from women's advocacy groups I may be convinced but mostly I hear men who hate muslims saying this. (like Harper not present company)

We should be able to separate the issue from those who you think you mostly hear saying it.

This is a non-issue. Anyone who gets worked up over whether people should be allowed to hide their face while swearing to be loyal slaves of Her Majesty seriously have nothing better to do in life. Harper is laughing his ass off. And calling Boulerice an "asshole" because he gives an honest, progressive, democratic opinion? That shows how low the level of political and social analysis and discussion can sink in this land. It's extremely sad, and it clearly indicates that the left is fucked.

NDPP

josh wrote:
You cannot be soft on nigabs. It's a serious and growing problem. If left unchecked, the terrorists will win.

good one! This is so fucked..

onlinediscountanvils

This was posted in another thread just three weeks ago, but still relevant, apparently.

Maysie wrote:

This is a few years old but still relevant, apparently.

Calling all feminists: Get over the veil debate, focus on real problems

Quote:

 For many decades women who follow a religion were excluded as unable to be part of the feminist movement. Muslim women reject that. We believe that the movement towards more gender just societies must absolutely include women of religion if we are to achieve global and lasting change. 

....

[The] idea that western feminists will free Muslim women is a sentiment widely shared. It infantilises Muslim women. How can we engage if you treat us as lesser beings? Respect must be the crucial foundation. This is also lacking in some extreme Muslim discourse that refers disgustingly to non-veiled women as raw meat, and fair game. Mutual respect is a sentiment which will foster better outcomes for all.

...

If the feminist argument is that Muslim women who autonomously choose to veil only think they are doing so out of free will, and are in fact being brainwashed to do so, then the core principle of feminism to elevate women’s control of their own destiny is immediately violated. And worse, it underscores the argument that feminism is a western imperialist project: that only western culture can supposedly liberate women, and that all other ideas are brainwashing. Perhaps the most insulting subtext of all is that Muslim women are infants, to be patronised into the 'right' choices.

 

And in Boulerice's case, it's not even a matter of "freeing Muslim women", but rather that his white boy fee-fees get hurt when he sees a woman wearing niqab.

Look at who is being centred in his comments. (spoiler:It isn't Muslim women)

Alexandre Boulerice wrote:
The niqab is a type of barrier that is created between women and the rest of society. It is a wall. It is something that shocks us and with which we are totally uncomfortable

Alexandre Boulerice wrote:
It is not a practice that we like, the niqab, nor one we agree with. We live in a society where usually we can see people’s eyes, face, expression.

Alexandre Boulerice wrote:
I would prefer that in society, whether it is in the delivery of public services or in society, that people have their face uncovered

onlinediscountanvils

lagatta wrote:

Those of us who know him (and I am NOT an NDP member) know that he has a very long record of defending immigrant and minority rights. 

As Shakespeare penned; "Even a stopped asshole is right twice a day."

Winston

This whole niqab "issue" is a total non-issue. Just another way for f*ckwads like Trudeau and Harper to paper over their similarities with a false "difference".

What a load of bullsh*t!

Shame on Boulerice and Martin and Dewar for falling into this trap.

You'll notice that no one is talking about Harper and Trudeau's accord on C-51 anymore. Instead, everyone is in a tissy about the handful of women in this country that choose to wear the niqab. A totally thorough and successful diversion from REAL issues has been accomplished!

No wonder people don't vote anymore!

jjuares

Wow lots of angry comments here. I believe lots of people on the left have forgotten who our real enemy is............The Peoples Front of Judea.

Debater

lagatta wrote:

This was not a policy statement. It was an appearance on a TV show run by a demagogue.

I'm laughing because I think this kerfuffle will have absolutely no impact on Boulerice's chances in the next elections. Those of us who know him (and I am NOT an NDP member) know that he has a very long record of defending immigrant and minority rights. 

I agree.  Boulerice is one of the strongest NDP MP's in Québec.  I predict he will be re-elected.  He is a very strong & passionate speaker.

I don't think the issue is over Boulerice's chances, but whether this issue causes a wider debate within the NDP caucus in other parts of the country.

pookie

 

Unionist wrote:

You didn't even address a fraction of my questions.

Should we respect an individual slave's "right" to be a slave? Or is society entitled to ban slavery, and fuck the slave who enjoys it as a personal right?

Should we allow teachers to hide their faces in public schools?

My answer is clear: No, never.

What's yours?

 

My answer is: I don't give a shit if a teacher covers her face.  

I was at a feminist conference years ago, talking about the NS case (sexual assault complainantant who wore a niqab).  Was speaking to a well-known sexual assault scholar who absolutely supported NS's right to testify that way (I was a bit on the fence) but said SHE would demand a different teacher if her son's chose to wear one.

WHY?

"I want my son to be able to see my teacher smile."

It was...surreal.

So, yeah, you can go stuff the offensive analogies to people being able to sell themselves into slavery, Unionist.  It is utterly beneath you and you wouldn't hesitate to call out the use of that tactic on you if it were a liberty you gave two shits about.

We are talking about the niqab.  Not slavery, not KKK hoods.

Oh, and FTR.  I don't give a shit about the Bouchard/Taylor report.

Fine.  Everybody "doesn't like" the niqab.  Bully for you.

Using it as a gatekeeper for public citizenship is shocking.  

 

pookie

pookie wrote:

 

Unionist wrote:

You didn't even address a fraction of my questions.

Should we respect an individual slave's "right" to be a slave? Or is society entitled to ban slavery, and fuck the slave who enjoys it as a personal right?

Should we allow teachers to hide their faces in public schools?

My answer is clear: No, never.

What's yours?

 

My answer is: I don't give a shit if a teacher covers her face.  

I was at a feminist conference years ago, talking about the NS case (sexual assault complainantant who wore a niqab).  Was speaking to a well-known sexual assault scholar who absolutely supported NS's right to testify that way (I was a bit on the fence) but said SHE would demand a different teacher if her son's chose to wear one.

WHY?

"I want my son to be able to see my teacher smile."

It was...surreal.

So, yeah, you can go stuff the offensive analogies to people being able to sell themselves into slavery, Unionist.  It is utterly beneath you and you wouldn't hesitate to call out the use of that tactic on you if it were a liberty you gave two shits about.

We are talking about the niqab.  Not slavery, not KKK hoods.

Oh, and FTR.  I don't give a shit about the Bouchard/Taylor report either.  Which I have read several times. I certainly don't use it as some sort of benchmark.

Fine.  Everybody "doesn't like" the niqab.  Bully for you.

Using it as a gatekeeper for public citizenship is shocking.  

 

Tehanu

Interesting thread. Interesting, too, beyond the dog-whistle aspect of Harper making a Big Deal of this and roping a whole whack of people into the debate.

The position of Muslim women in some parts of the world, and their position in Western countries, is often used as a stick with which to pummel Western feminists, and it's a can't-win proposition.

On the one hand, if Western feminists assert that women have the right to self-determination, and that includes what women wear, how women interpret religion, and what sort of activism women will undertake to change society, and that it's colonialist/privileged/oppressive to try and impose Western values on others, lo, moral relativism.

On the other hand, if Western feminists say that the position of Muslim women in some countries is terrible, and we need to intervene and change laws and free oppressed women and girls, lo, cultural imperialism.

(Note that for the right, the position of "women and girls in _____" tends only to be trotted out when they want to invade a country. Saudi Arabia is fine, even though their laws restricting women rival and even surpass apartheid in South Africa. So Steven Harper is a total hypocrite, but we knew that.)

So often, then, it's a matter of approach. What understanding do we have about the often-complex reasons why women, incuding feminist-identified women, may choose to wear hijab or niqab? What sort of support are Muslim feminists getting, and how can non-Muslim feminists be effective allies? How much racism, cultural stereotyping and out-and-out sexism is built into westerners wanting to protect oppressed Muslim women, or to insist that their cultural or religious practices have no place in our country?

Arguing about what a niqab-wearing woman is entitled to do or not entitled to do, including quibbling about what job she can take, strikes me as a very bad approach. In fact, I find it paternalistic. If we do hope to achieve some dialogue and understanding, and to create conditions in which it's clear that women have their own choices, then saying that women can't take certain jobs is a very good way of isolating them. And creating a genuine sense that they are not welcome in Canadian society. Which, if you're against niqab, is totally counter-productive, isn't it?

How about instead saying that we have room for many different views, that we want to ensure that women's choices are respected, and that the key thing that we underline in Canada is that it's up to women themselves to determine what they want to do. We will role model the values that we cherish. We will intervene if and when women's choices are taken away from them, and that goes for any religion/cultural practice including the dominant ones here (*cough* abortion rights, for example). We will include all people and engage in respectful dialogue to understand each other better. We will affirm that women's clothing choices are completely up to them; we will instead focus our time and energy to addressing the many ways that women remain unequal in all societies, including our own. 

And maybe we can also stop giving Steven Harper a platform on which he can pretend to give a shit about women's rights.

Unionist

Great hill for progressive folks to die on:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-tones-down-defence-of-f... tones down their defence of face-covering niqab in Quebec[/url]

Yay, Harper! Still smarter than the rest.

Tehanu, thanks for your comments as always. Just consider this: The same imperialist scum (Pat Martin, Paul Dewar, all the Liberals, etc.) who supported the invasion of Afghanistan to save the women and girls, are supporting the right to hide women's faces in Canada. What's wrong with this picture?

And pookie, just because you met some blithering idiot who said she wanted her child to be able to see her teacher smile... great argument. Ask me why. Here's my answer: "I don't want my kid growing up comfortable with the fact that her women teachers, but never her men teachers, are invisible - and lie to my child saying that these are just free individual choices.I want to be honest with my child and ensure they don't just hear about, but live, gender equality."

 

 

NDPP

Muslim Feminists Reclaim the Hijab to Fight Patriarchy

http://theconversation.com/muslim-feminists-reclaim-the-hijab-to-fight-t...

"If only men obsessed over the education, health and justice of Muslim women like they obsess over the hijab."

Unionist

NDPP wrote:

Muslim Feminists Reclaim the Hijab to Fight Patriarchy

http://theconversation.com/muslim-feminists-reclaim-the-hijab-to-fight-t...

"If only men obsessed over the education, health and justice of Muslim women like they obsess over the hijab."

You're seriously talking about the hijab here?

We (Quebecers of all stripes) fought such a relentless battle against the racist PQ "Charter" that we actually elected the damn Liberals rather than bless it.

The niqab is a phoney little diversion, of interest to no one except Harper and his election dreams. Defending the "right" to wear a niqab at some citizenship ceremony is truly a sign of terminal forest-tree confusion.

terrytowel

Unionist wrote:

Should we respect an individual slave's "right" to be a slave? Or is society entitled to ban slavery, and fuck the slave who enjoys it as a personal right?

In the BDSM community, yes their are people that identify as slaves deferring to their master.

I would say there are more people who see themselves as slaves, then their are women who wear the Niqab.

So now you want to dictate what people do in their sex lives?

My body, my choice.

But obviously you disagree.

voice of the damned

FWIW, if a woman wants to get up and announce to her friends "I don't think women should have any rights under the Charter, and I will never express any opinion that contradicts that of my husband", well, there isn't much we can do to stop her.

.

voice of the damned

^We CAN stop her from saying that as a teacher in a classroom, though

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

We don't allow individuals to (for example) renounce their right to freedom of expression. Read the Charter.

REPLY: Well, I'm not really sure how it would be possible to meaningfully renounce a right that no one is forcing you to exercise in the first place.

Geoff

"NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice Says He Does Not Like The Niqab."  I would therefore defend his right not to wear one.  Problem solved for Alexandre.

Unionist

voice of the damned wrote:
FWIW, if a woman wants to get up and announce to her friends "I don't think women should have any rights under the Charter, and I will never express any opinion that contradicts that of my husband", well, there isn't much we can do to stop her. .

I wouldn't dream of stopping her saying that. Or wearing a niqab, if that's how she likes to express her individuality or whatever.

But - what you said here:

voice of the damned wrote:
^We CAN stop her from saying that as a teacher in a classroom, though

Yes we can.

 

Unionist

voice of the damned wrote:
Unionist wrote: We don't allow individuals to (for example) renounce their right to freedom of expression. Read the Charter. REPLY: Well, I'm not really sure how it would be possible to meaningfully renounce a right that no one is forcing you to exercise in the first place.

Ok, try this:

I'm not allowed to work for less than minimum wage - even if I swear up and down that I'd love to, just for the experience, or because my deity told me to, sign waivers and disclaimers, whatever.

That's what I meant by not having an individual right to be a slave. Not terrytowel's nonsensical disingenuous interpretation that I was talking about sex play.

 

 

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
Unionist wrote: We don't allow individuals to (for example) renounce their right to freedom of expression. Read the Charter. REPLY: Well, I'm not really sure how it would be possible to meaningfully renounce a right that no one is forcing you to exercise in the first place.

Ok, try this:

I'm not allowed to work for less than minimum wage - even if I swear up and down that I'd love to, just for the experience, or because my deity told me to, sign waivers and disclaimers, whatever.

That's what I meant by not having an individual right to be a slave. Not terrytowel's nonsensical disingenuous interpretation that I was talking about sex play.

 

 

Right. You can't renounce a material benfit that someone is legally obligated to give you. That's a better example than the right to free expression, which the government allows you, but doesn't involve you receivng any material good from anyone.

voice of the damned

^ Though I suppose someone who really wanted to be a slave could refuse to cash his cheques, and allow them expire after the deadline. But an employer would probably run into legal problems if he took steps to encourage that practice.

josh

Unionist wrote:

Great hill for progressive folks to die on:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-tones-down-defence-of-f... tones down their defence of face-covering niqab in Quebec[/url]

 

We cannot allow a niqab gap!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

You didn't even address a fraction of my questions.

Should we respect an individual slave's "right" to be a slave? Or is society entitled to ban slavery, and fuck the slave who enjoys it as a personal right?

Should we allow teachers to hide their faces in public schools?

My answer is clear: No, never.

What's yours?

Your arguments used to be so much better.  Brother you have lost it.

My views are as fucking left wing as yours but they are framed in a different context. Where I live we have seen what happens when war propaganda gets accepted by most respectable people. The Japanese citizens amongst us get locked up and dispossed of all their worldly belongings. Again when a religios group didn't want to conform to our societal norms and teach their children as the government ordered they were put into the same intermnent camps as the Japanese and their children were apprehended by the state.

I have fought side by side in Human Rights Coalitions with Sikhs for three decades and I consider it a human right for individuals to be allowed to freely express their religion with their choice of apparell.

Also where I live the most oppresed women are Xian's who belong to minor sects. JW's or many of the born again churches are ever bit as nasty and misogynist as the Muslem cultures. But since they only make their women wear drab clothes for the same modesty reasons as women in some cultures wear veils they get a pass.

 Don't stop at banning women with veils from participating in Canadian society lets have a national debate on whether we should round up all the children of women who wear veils but only for their own good though. 

NorthReport
lagatta

Rima Elkouri in La Presse: Le Niqab intérieur: http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/chroniques/rima-elkouri/201503/14/01-48521...

She is generally in agreement with Alexandre Boulerice. The niqab is a "terrible symbole of female alienation", but extremely rare here, unlike very common sexual assaults and other ways of keeping women "in line".

Rima's Syrian background is Orthodox Christian, not Muslim. But I know several Muslim or of Muslim origin women from the Maghreb and the Middle East who agree with her, and I'm sure she does too. It is seen as a Wahabist tool promoted by the wealthy but uncultured Saudis.

Pages