Naqib meaning of course, not just the regular headscarf (hijab) but the covering up to the eyes (like a burqa almost). Right?

There was a case, not sure if it went all the way to the SCOTUS, but a woman sued because a policeman asked her to remove hers so he could see if her face matched the picture on her driver's license; who was Muslim.

I'm pretty sure that niqab and burqa are one and the same thing.

In truth I don't really have a problem with banning it from public ceremonies. The simple fact of the matter is that women are forced into covering their faces through social pressure (imposed, incidentally, by the most conservative elements of any society you could possibly expect to meet). I'm sure that there are some women who have embraced this extremist form of cultural and religious expression, but that doesn't make it compatible with our values. One of the defining characteristics of western society which I personally believe makes it superior to Middle Eastern society is our belief in equality of the sexes. The niqab is very visible symbol of the exact opposite.

Agreed.

That said however I cannot see a free society going so far as to ban a religious symbol being worn in public, or on private property (like, not in school or wherever) where it isn't a threat to the State (democratically-elected one). By that I mean, it's obvious to force women to remove a niqab when a policeman who stopped them is trying to find out it's really them and needs to see her face. That's a matter of state security (or national security, what have you). But as far as being incompatible to your country's [Canada's] values, I cannot see the point in actually banning the niqab or--as the French unwisely did--the hijab totally. I am sure Rickyp did not want this thread to become about THAT, however, but I must bring up the question about a threat somehow to Canada's values (or our's for that reason). Even if Canada is a majority Christian country, how does that affect Christianity in Canada just because some Muslim woman is--equally in my opinion--fool enough to dress herself voluntarily like this is the Magic Kingdom, or Taliban-held Afghanistan. I feel that's a damn fool thing to do just because of your "identity"...but fools have the right to be fools, unless it hurts other people.

Your country's "values" are not relevant to this matter: by that I mean, how does it hurt Canada's values to allow some foolish woman to grocery shop in a niqab? All your government is doing by banning that is give more ammunition to Muslim extremists.

sass

I'm pretty sure that niqab and burqa are one and the same thing.

The burqa envelops the entire body. The niqab is the veil covering the face.
The hajib is just the head scarf. You see a lot of women in hajib in Toronto. Not so much the niqab and the burqa is a rare sight. (Although in the winter it might make sense sometimes.)

I think most will agree with you on this.

I'm sure that there are some women who have embraced this extremist form of cultural and religious expression, but that doesn't make it compatible with our values. One of the defining characteristics of western society which I personally believe makes it superior to Middle Eastern society is our belief in equality of the sexes. The niqab is very visible symbol of the exact opposite.

However the opposite side of that, if it isn't right for a woman's religion to prescribe how it is she should dress or how not to dress....why is it then the right of the government to do so? And isn't a ban the government doing just that?
The Charter of Rights allows people the freedom to choose. It was highlighted in the early 90's when a sikh was allowed to wear his turban while conducting his duties as a RCMP officer. That went to the Supreme Court.
At citizenship ceremonies and when receiving service at government facilities (immigration, health insurance) provision can be made for women wearing niqab to meet a female government agent in a private room to identify themselves in private. So it is a circumstance that can be accommodated. The practical necessity of banning them is nil. Harper's just being a great dick. Because,
The political necessity, for the conservatives is great. Right now the election results may depend on sucking in the nativists in Quebec to shore up their seat count.
Hacker has pretty well identified the counter point. Beyond that, the most revered element of Canada is the Charter of Freedoms and since the Conservatives keep running into it with laws, including this ban, there is also a legitimate problem if they take the issue too far.

It should be noted that this issue was first an issue in Quebec where the separatistes wanted to ban religious symbols of all stripes from civil servants. Then started to relent on small crucifix, and star of David jewellery. And started to wilt as the issue of yamulkas, turbans etc .... But the current Liberal government there is going ahead with a ban on ostentatious religious symbols in the government work space.
The problem being that there is a large crucifix in the Quebec legislature... And New France was originally very religious. But the evolution away from religion was pretty dramatic and swift in the 60's and 70s (The Quiet Revolution) Today, Catholicism has a limited influence on the province.
The more conservative Francophone elements in Quebec are xenophobic. (Outside Montreal). And they eat up the anti-Islamic stuff. Even though many never encounter Muslims.
In Montreal people are particularly secular. And they tend to take a dim view of the wearing of the naqib, as you do Sass, but are tolerant of the woman's right to choose.
Thats pretty much similar in the rest of Canada too. Large Urban areas tend to tolerate differences. Rural and small cities tend to imagine they are greater than they are and are enraged by differences that they often seldom personally meet and which are very unlikely to affect their lives. .

I see people wearing niqabs almost every day, it's common in Sheffield where we have many large Islamic communities. It's obviously difficult to tell since you can't see their faces, but based on the ethnic identity of the men you see them trailing along two steps behind it seems to be most common in the Somali community, which is also the community with the lowest educational standards and highest rates of unemployment and general backwardness. Obviously you can't blame these things on the veil, but I do think it's reasonable to point out that it seems to go hand in hand with ignorance.

I'm sympathetic to the ban concept mostly because I don't believe for one second that most women who wear them are doing so by choice. It's weight of cultural expectation which makes them do it, and by cutting themselves off so effectively from wider society (which is totally inevitable when you hide your face from the world) they'll never manage to break away from that. Banning them in a few places might just provide that bit of space that would ultimately liberate the women who have to wear them.

RickyP< after reading your post are you saying that a woman should be allowed to interface with the government as she sees fit in regards to her religious views, and the government should just stay out of the decision?

Perhaps I was misunderstanding your double-speak. Apologies...

bbauska

RickyP< after reading your post are you saying that a woman should be allowed to interface with the government as she sees fit in regards to her religious views, and the government should just stay out of the decision?

Your reading comprehension fails you again.
I said this ...

At citizenship ceremonies and when receiving service at government facilities (immigration, health insurance) provision can be made for women wearing niqab to meet a female government agent in a private room to identify themselves in private. So it is a circumstance that can be accommodated. The practical necessity of banning them is nil

The government's interest is in ascertaining that the person in attendance is who it is supposed to be ..
If that need can be met and the woman still gets to choose her clothing in public, then that reasonable accommodation should be met.
Does the government have an interest in eliminating the wearing of the niqab or burka for another reason? Sass may think so ...

sass
I

'm sympathetic to the ban concept mostly because I don't believe for one second that most women who wear them are doing so by choice. It's weight of cultural expectation which makes them do it, and by cutting themselves off so effectively from wider society (which is totally inevitable when you hide your face from the world) they'll never manage to break away from that. Banning them in a few places might just provide that bit of space that would ultimately liberate the women who have to wear them

I agree that the notion of the niqab and even the burka is appalling. I think that for the most part second and third generation women in these families will give up the practice...
But not all.
After many generations, there are still women who choose the modest dress of the mennonites, and Amish. Shall we ban that to free these women?
Shall we then ban Jewish men of Orthodox sect from the from wearing silk stockings and black hats and women's of this sect from their clothing choices?
How much freedom to choose are you willing to eliminate in order to promote freedom?

As I recall the attempt to ban mini skirts in my high school failed. I was very pleased at that .... I regularly councilled girls to raise their hem lines in the spirit of their liberation!!!

Well, it's a complicated issue. I don't think I'd favour a complete ban, like the French have introduced. I don't see a problem with the state publicly expressing distaste for the practice by banning it in certain contexts though, and the sheer symbolism of a citizenship ceremony makes it an obvious choice. Schools would be another (although I don't think there's actually a problem there since children are usually exempted from the requirement to wear them anyway).

The examples you used of the Amish and Orthodox Jews and whatnot are relevant, but only to a point. Modest dress is one thing, a requirement to completely cover your face and withdraw into a closed world where only your husband is permitted to look at you is quite another.

My point is that you appear to be fine with the government making an accommodation for some people due to religious concerns/beliefs. I am fine with that accommodation being across the board, not just niche applied.

bbauska wrote:My point is that you appear to be fine with the government making an accommodation for some people due to religious concerns/beliefs. I am fine with that accommodation being across the board, not just niche applied.

There are always limits.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:My point is that you appear to be fine with the government making an accommodation for some people due to religious concerns/beliefs. I am fine with that accommodation being across the board, not just niche applied.

There are always limits.

Thank you for your opinion.

I'm never sure exactly what you driving at bbauska...

The woman who actually sued the government over her right to take the oath of citizenship wearing the niqab became a citizen today.\

It was a very emotional ceremony," said her lawyer Lorne Waldman.
Before the oath, "she was taken into a room and identified herself and took off her veil in front of a female officer," he said.
"After that, we went into the office of the judge and performed the full ceremony," Waldman said.
"The judge made a very moving statement about what it means to be a Canadian...and then she was given her certificate, she signed her oath card, which every Canadian has to do, and then after that we all sang O Canada.

I think this demonstrates that there is no need to Ban the niqab from the ceremony . So the motivation is simply racist.
By the way, this woman decided to wear the niqqab at the age of 15 in Pakistan against her parents wishes. Her husband told her to take the oath without the niqqab and has never been part of the decision to wear it ....
I still don't like the practice but she seems to contradict a lot of stereotypes...
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/09 ... ref=canada

Not driving for anything. Just asking your opinion.

BTW, not sure if I asked this as it doesn't typically happen in the UK, but you mentioned there were minority governments before in Canada. How is that even possible under the principles of parliamentary democracy.

Minority government is pretty straightforward. The largest party forms a government but lacks enough votes to force through legislation so they have to negotiate with other parties every time they want to pass any votes. If they lose a confidence motion or budget vote then the government falls and you get new elections. They can be surprisingly stable because the other parties often don't want fresh elections (or the only want to force them when they're confident of winning) so they'll frequently abstain rather than voting the government down. You'd think it would be impossible for the government to ever pass any legislation but it doesn't really work that way in practice. Opposition parties can't be seen to just block everything.