Wintreath Regional Community
The Frozen Village of Fourneshore - Chats and Discussions => Howling Wind Tavern - General Discussion => Topic started by: Seroim on October 23, 2017, 01:05:13 PM
-
Speaking of religion, a few days ago, Quebec's National Assembly passed a law that forbids receiving or giving government services with a covered face.
It's really a niqab ban in these instances but we have to play coy and include all the other stuff like ski masks because of the Canadian Charter.
Niqab bans are in place all over Europe, some of which are much more stringent than this. Opinions?
-
Sounds more like the continuation of the islamophobia that has swept the globe for the last 16 years.
-
I hate it that they're doing that. It doesn't solve any real problems, and they know it. But getting the racist vote energized wins elections, and they know that too. So we're going to keep seeing useless anti-Muslim bills pass until it stops being socially acceptable and we move on to hate someone else, or maybe go back to anti-LGBT stuff again.
-
For my part, I think a society has the right to restrict individual action in the name of shared values.
The niqab is a garment that debases women and men alike by treating the first like sexual objects devoid of agency, and the second like animals unable to control themselves.
The message it sends is just as disgusting as a swastika or a KKK costume. It conveys profound contempt for the most basic Western values. So yes, I would ban the shit out of the niqab, anywhere, anytime.
I find it interesting that in Canada, the debate is largely polarized between French speakers, who support the ban, and English speakers, who are against. I don't have the time to go into it now, but that's interesting from a constitutional standpoint. I'll write more when I'm back from class.
-
I don't know on what level it hurts more, as a human, a Canadian, or someone who's transcript reads major: Islamic Studies. I'm of the opinion (And most Muslims born in the west that I've met agree with me. Though it's helpful to remember that Islam is like any other religion and that interpretation is important.) That the niqab is first most a cultural item with thousands of years of tradition predating Islam. Most of the woman who I've met who wear them wear them out of choice, not force. As far as I'm concerned they are allowed to wear whatever they like as long as it's not obviously offensive (Such as the aforementioned KKK costumes) and that the law is ridiculous.
-
I don't see what this achieves. Sure, it's a pretty stupid tradition, but so is dropping in prayer in front of a torture device. If people want to do that, and they're not being forced, I don't care.
-
Since this has become a topic unto itself, I've split it out of SWOYM. :)
-
In truth, I think it stems from some misguided fear that allowing Muslims into the country will result in their children being converted, or some such nonsense, further eroding traditions.
There are just too few for this to happen. That being said, when you are part of a minority already, like the French are in Canada and the Afrikaner is in South Africa, and the government doesn't actively protect your culture, then it really does get eroded by the dominant culture. The same thing happened to native Americans, for instance. Is this inevitable? Perhaps. That doesn't make it a non-issue.
-
On the one hand, I'm a fan of multiculturalism, being biracial anyway. It would kinda suck to have to pick one.
Moreover, this kind of seems like it would have the opposite effect of what was intended - rather than promote female agency, it seems like women who wear niqabs wouldn't take them off to access government services, they just would have their husbands do it on their behalf, or not use it at all. Kind of like pro-life people wanting to ban contraception - no, that's how you get more abortions.
At the same time though, I feel like there should be a minimum baseline standard of a common culture for people who want to reside in a country long term to adopt. France takes that 'liberte, egalite, fraternite' shit seriously (which seems tangential but I'm asserting that because of that cultural origin that Quebec probably does too), and there is that sense of what Seroim (hi I don't think we've met by the way) asserts about the niqab.
But I don't think that's a religious thing - I think that's a cultural thing, much like that vastly overexaggerated Victorian prudishness has sort of waned over the last century in the West, since pictures from 1970s Afghanistan or Iran suggest that Islam is not incompatible with western values.
At the end of the day though I'd rather weigh in on the side of not banning it. But I wouldn't be too cut up if people judged them for wearing it in the same way you'd kind of look at a nun or buddhist monk or whatever and think 'oh, jeez, glad I'm not a religious fanatic like that guy' and then go back to worshipping at whatever the latest electronic altar is.
-
I will say this, and I am sorry for the jump, but hear me out.
Nazis are repellant. They are anathema to everything western society stands for. Swastikas are symbols of this and are bad.
The Confederacy was repellant. They stood against basic freedoms that mark western civilization. The Confederate Battle flag is a symbol of this and is bad.
I would not ban Swastikas and Confederate flags. Just because it is repulsive does not mean I support banning it or its symbols.
And those are two obviously abbhorent things. Imagine how I feel about something as wide, varied and different as Islam. Some parts are abbhorent. Some parts are beautiful. Some parts are bittersweet. So no, I would not support banning Burkhas or Niquabs.
I also would like to point this out: you cannot ban a thought or an idea. If you go hard at Niqabs and Burkhas, Muslims on the fence will jump to defend it. People who were moderate will feel oppressed and persecuted and next thing you know you have a radicalized and fundamentalist population.
You cannot force people to abandon parts of their culture or heritage anymore than they can do the same to you. Want Islam to accept leaving things like the Burkha or Niqab behind? You cant do it with a gun, a pair of handcuffs, a law or threats.
-
I'll just quote this bright man here but I think it's a big enough post that most arguments and interrogations will find a reply or an answer.
In truth, I think it stems from some misguided fear that allowing Muslims into the country will result in their children being converted, or some such nonsense, further eroding traditions.
Why is it illegal to walk around naked? Isn't that the same rationale as allowing PDA, or allowing women to breastfeed in public? Don't look if you don't like it.
Why is it illegal to have sexual relations with close relatives? Assume both are consenting adults and use protection rigourously. Why should the State care what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults? In the same vein, why is polygamy illegal?
Why is it illegal (in Canada) for adult and consenting females to undergo FGM beyond the mere ceremonial pinprick? Isn't it their body, their choice?
In answer to your previous (and oft-repeated by others) statement of "I don't see what the ban achieves", the answer depends on what you mean by "achieving something". If you mean that "something" is freeing unwilling niqabis from cultural pressures to don the full veil, or persuading willing niqabis to suddenly accept Western values wholesale and ditch the veils out of their own free will, then it will achieve next to nothing. I'm not holding my breath, none of that will happen. Hate speech laws don't keep racists from being racists.
However, I think a society has the right to decide for itself which behaviours and values are acceptable in public life. We've got plenty of examples in our law codes, that's just one more. Here we have a garment, whether it's religious or cultural doesn't really matter, that has profoundly disturbing connotations in Quebec society. The premier himself, a Liberal, has noted that the niqab symbolizes "l’instrumentalisation de la religion pour des fins d’oppression et de soumission" (the instrumentation of religion to ends of oppression and submission). That is the connotation the full face veil has in Quebec.
Consider that secular Quebec is a relatively young entity. You are close to something with your "fear of being converted" comment, but you haven't scored bull's eye. In living memory, the Catholic Church had nigh-absolute dominion over my province's society and government. For all intents and purposes, Francophone Quebec was a theocracy. When a mother gave birth and there were complications, it was the parish priest who decided which to save - the mother or the child. It was always the child. Women were subjected to routine visits by clerical authorities and "encouraged" to have more children, even in cases where it was medically known one more birth would kill the woman. We didn't have Ministries of Health or Education until the mid-60s - until then, schools and hospitals were ran by the Church. And finally, and perhaps the greatest injustice of all, the Catholic Church in Quebec made it almost impossible for French Canadians to have any chance of social mobility in their own society - except through limited professions like law or medicine and of course, the Church. We were hewers of wood and drawers of water in our own society, our women sows for the agrarian, fundamentally Catholic utopia of the Church, we were "nés pour une bouchée de pain" (born for a bite of bread) as the saying goes, until the Quiet Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution) took place.
Put simply, the Quiet Revolution is when we realized that we were better than we thought we were. We took control back of our society and government from the Church and its secular agents. Notably, when we created the Ministry of Education, we gave the teaching nuns a choice : take off your cornets and keep teaching, keep them on and retire to the nunneries where you belong. See the parallel?
We're not scared of being converted. We're not even Christians for the most part. We don't marry in the Church. We don't baptize our children anymore (mine was the last generation where this was mostly done as a matter of course). We don't go to Church. We'll say we're "Catholic" because of some vague attachment to the cultural aspects of Quebec's religious legacy - remember that everything I wrote about above is living memory, and the toponyms especially still carry a heavy Catholic influence (if you look at a map of Quebec, you'll swear nearly every town has the name of a saint). Hell, I had religion classes in high school. I'm 27.
So when you think about why there is such widespread support (this measure in particular polled at 94% support among francophones in Montreal (https://imgur.com/a/Ktzrj) - the biggest and most multicultural city, it's likely higher everywhere else) for a measure that will be for nearly all intents and purposes ineffective, you have to keep this context in mind. Distrust of religion - any and all religion - is a peculiarly Quebecer value. In Quebec, religion belongs in exactly 3 places : your inner life, your private home and your place of worship. You do not talk about it unless you're certain you're with people who want to talk about it. You do not show your faith in public. You make the least fuzz possible about it. If it's really necessary, we'll twist the rules a bit so you can do whatever you need, such as praying - but out of sight and out of mind.
So this ban is just like any other ban based of values - it sets a standard for what Quebec society is ready to tolerate in public. We forbid hate speech because we think sentences like "death to globalist kikes" or "niggers should be enslaved" are repugnant - we can't stop anybody from thinking those things, but we can at least keep them from displaying these sentiments in public. It's the same thing with the niqab, whether it's religious or simply cultural doesn't really matter (and in Canada a simple sincere belief that one has to wear the niqab in the name of religion would count as a religious belief anyway, no matter if that belief is theologically true or not), it's an open display of everything we as a society despise about religion, its dogmas and its excesses. We're not scared of being converted. We're insulted because niqabis are flaunting the most basic rules of "vivre-ensemble" (live-togetherness) we've decided we wanted for our society. They're wearing shoes inside. It won't kill us, we can just wash up after, but we'd rather not and we've the right to set rules in our home.
Do you know Popper's paradox of tolerance? Unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance. So in real terms, there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but that line is at least somewhat subjective. In Quebec, the niqab would probably be largely considered a display of intolerance that we have no business tolerating or normalizing.
Quebec is a distinct society within Canada. We've made the shift from a quasi-theocratical, parochial society of illiterate peasants to a proudly egalitarian, confident and modern society in 60 short years. Our policies on most subjects are some of the most progressive in North America. We also hold some of the French attachment to laïcité, a concept which, shared language oblige, is known and appreciated here. It's not for nothing a niqab ban (in fact, a harsher one) is in effect in France and Belgium, and in these two countries it has been upheld by the ECHR as valid. Different societies have different concepts of "live-togetherness". It's cool if other societies are willing to tolerate niqabis, but it doesn't make us racists, Islamophobes or xenophobes if we don't. Morocco doesn't seem to tolerate them either.
There are just too few for this to happen. That being said, when you are part of a minority already, like the French are in Canada and the Afrikaner is in South Africa, and the government doesn't actively protect your culture, then it really does get eroded by the dominant culture. The same thing happened to native Americans, for instance. Is this inevitable? Perhaps. That doesn't make it a non-issue.
True. We've survived to best efforts of the British Empire to assimilate us, we can survive 3% or so Muslims. That's not the problem.
Canadian multicultural doctrine is officially rejected in Quebec in favour of "interculturalism" : we're willing to take immigrant cultural contributions in a spirit of mutual curiosity and learning, but otherwise you're expected to adhere to the rules of dominant francophone society. That includes the very Quebecer disdain towards being openly religious.
I've never understood how Anglo-Canadians are so alright with this (to me) extreme "you-do-you" attitude. We are more communitarian - we expect more conformity in return. Think of it as the difference between big city and small town. But that's the crux of the debate. We have different values, we're different societies. I've written this big post but I don't really expect anyone to truly get it.
We could discuss until the cows come home about which values are right or wrong, in all probability no one will change their minds - all I know is that I really resent the attitude of some Canadian politicians who want the feds to come and meddle in our affairs through a Charter that has been forced down our throats and which is left unsigned by Quebec to this very day. We might very well see an uptick in sovereigntist sentiment if this happens.
-
I don't really believe in enforced conformity, but I gotta admit that you do make a convincing argument. The fact that all religions are looked down upon equally in a public context for a more secular society is something not inherently bad (and could be argued as being good), especially if that's just how it culturally is there.
But I think the idea of reducing civil liberties where a supermajority agree on something that should be banned would be more acceptable in a world where like-minded groups could more easily split to become their own autonomous states if they strongly disagreed with the majority -- as I believe in self-determination -- and if people could easily move between these smaller states. This would allow people to move somewhere that more closely aligns with their beliefs. We obviously don't live in that world, however.
So in the world we live in, I'm in favor of multiculturalism and max individual liberties, allowing everyone to equally do what they want to themselves by themselves. Consequently, I think all of those illegal things you mentioned at the top of your post should also be legal -- as long as they're all done by choice. But, hey, that's just me.
-
One reason I suppose Quebec independence is this kind of question. I feel like we're tenants in Canada instead of homeowners and thus we're not completely free to set rules as a group. I value the ability of an individual to do what he wills less than I value the ability of the group to survive intact through thick and thin. I think the same is true for many of my fellows - for instance, we francophones do not have the right to send our kids to English schools up until the post-secondary level. If your mother tongue is French, you go to school in French and that's that, even though the anglophone minority in the province has a full school system that could accommodate us. It's to limit assimilation, but it does put a damper on individual choice. BTW, anyone can attend French school.
Another example : Quebec has a mandatory assistance law. If someone's life is in danger, you have a general duty to rescue and you are legally required to provide assistance unless it would also put your life in danger. If you don't, you can be held liable. In the rest of Canada I believe there is no such obligation and you can't be held liable for not providing assistance.
The values of a society are very grey. Aside from things like blood feuds, honour killings and marrying 10 years olds that we can all agree are not desirable in our societies, there is a considerable amount of slack to play with. Different societies do not value the same things at equivalent levels. That's completely fine, and there are different positives and negatives to ways of doing things.
-
I'll just quote this bright man here but I think it's a big enough post that most arguments and interrogations will find a reply or an answer.
In truth, I think it stems from some misguided fear that allowing Muslims into the country will result in their children being converted, or some such nonsense, further eroding traditions.
Why is it illegal to walk around naked? Isn't that the same rationale as allowing PDA, or allowing women to breastfeed in public? Don't look if you don't like it.
Why is it illegal to have sexual relations with close relatives? Assume both are consenting adults and use protection rigourously. Why should the State care what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults? In the same vein, why is polygamy illegal?
Why is it illegal (in Canada) for adult and consenting females to undergo FGM beyond the mere ceremonial pinprick? Isn't it their body, their choice?
In answer to your previous (and oft-repeated by others) statement of "I don't see what the ban achieves", the answer depends on what you mean by "achieving something". If you mean that "something" is freeing unwilling niqabis from cultural pressures to don the full veil, or persuading willing niqabis to suddenly accept Western values wholesale and ditch the veils out of their own free will, then it will achieve next to nothing. I'm not holding my breath, none of that will happen. Hate speech laws don't keep racists from being racists.
However, I think a society has the right to decide for itself which behaviours and values are acceptable in public life. We've got plenty of examples in our law codes, that's just one more. Here we have a garment, whether it's religious or cultural doesn't really matter, that has profoundly disturbing connotations in Quebec society. The premier himself, a Liberal, has noted that the niqab symbolizes "l’instrumentalisation de la religion pour des fins d’oppression et de soumission" (the instrumentation of religion to ends of oppression and submission). That is the connotation the full face veil has in Quebec.
Consider that secular Quebec is a relatively young entity. You are close to something with your "fear of being converted" comment, but you haven't scored bull's eye. In living memory, the Catholic Church had nigh-absolute dominion over my province's society and government. For all intents and purposes, Francophone Quebec was a theocracy. When a mother gave birth and there were complications, it was the parish priest who decided which to save - the mother or the child. It was always the child. Women were subjected to routine visits by clerical authorities and "encouraged" to have more children, even in cases where it was medically known one more birth would kill the woman. We didn't have Ministries of Health or Education until the mid-60s - until then, schools and hospitals were ran by the Church. And finally, and perhaps the greatest injustice of all, the Catholic Church in Quebec made it almost impossible for French Canadians to have any chance of social mobility in their own society - except through limited professions like law or medicine and of course, the Church. We were hewers of wood and drawers of water in our own society, our women sows for the agrarian, fundamentally Catholic utopia of the Church, we were "nés pour une bouchée de pain" (born for a bite of bread) as the saying goes, until the Quiet Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution) took place.
Put simply, the Quiet Revolution is when we realized that we were better than we thought we were. We took control back of our society and government from the Church and its secular agents. Notably, when we created the Ministry of Education, we gave the teaching nuns a choice : take off your cornets and keep teaching, keep them on and retire to the nunneries where you belong. See the parallel?
We're not scared of being converted. We're not even Christians for the most part. We don't marry in the Church. We don't baptize our children anymore (mine was the last generation where this was mostly done as a matter of course). We don't go to Church. We'll say we're "Catholic" because of some vague attachment to the cultural aspects of Quebec's religious legacy - remember that everything I wrote about above is living memory, and the toponyms especially still carry a heavy Catholic influence (if you look at a map of Quebec, you'll swear nearly every town has the name of a saint). Hell, I had religion classes in high school. I'm 27.
So when you think about why there is such widespread support (this measure in particular polled at 94% support among francophones in Montreal (https://imgur.com/a/Ktzrj) - the biggest and most multicultural city, it's likely higher everywhere else) for a measure that will be for nearly all intents and purposes ineffective, you have to keep this context in mind. Distrust of religion - any and all religion - is a peculiarly Quebecer value. In Quebec, religion belongs in exactly 3 places : your inner life, your private home and your place of worship. You do not talk about it unless you're certain you're with people who want to talk about it. You do not show your faith in public. You make the least fuzz possible about it. If it's really necessary, we'll twist the rules a bit so you can do whatever you need, such as praying - but out of sight and out of mind.
So this ban is just like any other ban based of values - it sets a standard for what Quebec society is ready to tolerate in public. We forbid hate speech because we think sentences like "death to globalist kikes" or "niggers should be enslaved" are repugnant - we can't stop anybody from thinking those things, but we can at least keep them from displaying these sentiments in public. It's the same thing with the niqab, whether it's religious or simply cultural doesn't really matter (and in Canada a simple sincere belief that one has to wear the niqab in the name of religion would count as a religious belief anyway, no matter if that belief is theologically true or not), it's an open display of everything we as a society despise about religion, its dogmas and its excesses. We're not scared of being converted. We're insulted because niqabis are flaunting the most basic rules of "vivre-ensemble" (live-togetherness) we've decided we wanted for our society. They're wearing shoes inside. It won't kill us, we can just wash up after, but we'd rather not and we've the right to set rules in our home.
Do you know Popper's paradox of tolerance? Unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance. So in real terms, there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but that line is at least somewhat subjective. In Quebec, the niqab would probably be largely considered a display of intolerance that we have no business tolerating or normalizing.
Quebec is a distinct society within Canada. We've made the shift from a quasi-theocratical, parochial society of illiterate peasants to a proudly egalitarian, confident and modern society in 60 short years. Our policies on most subjects are some of the most progressive in North America. We also hold some of the French attachment to laïcité, a concept which, shared language oblige, is known and appreciated here. It's not for nothing a niqab ban (in fact, a harsher one) is in effect in France and Belgium, and in these two countries it has been upheld by the ECHR as valid. Different societies have different concepts of "live-togetherness". It's cool if other societies are willing to tolerate niqabis, but it doesn't make us racists, Islamophobes or xenophobes if we don't. Morocco doesn't seem to tolerate them either.
There are just too few for this to happen. That being said, when you are part of a minority already, like the French are in Canada and the Afrikaner is in South Africa, and the government doesn't actively protect your culture, then it really does get eroded by the dominant culture. The same thing happened to native Americans, for instance. Is this inevitable? Perhaps. That doesn't make it a non-issue.
True. We've survived to best efforts of the British Empire to assimilate us, we can survive 3% or so Muslims. That's not the problem.
Canadian multicultural doctrine is officially rejected in Quebec in favour of "interculturalism" : we're willing to take immigrant cultural contributions in a spirit of mutual curiosity and learning, but otherwise you're expected to adhere to the rules of dominant francophone society. That includes the very Quebecer disdain towards being openly religious.
I've never understood how Anglo-Canadians are so alright with this (to me) extreme "you-do-you" attitude. We are more communitarian - we expect more conformity in return. Think of it as the difference between big city and small town. But that's the crux of the debate. We have different values, we're different societies. I've written this big post but I don't really expect anyone to truly get it.
We could discuss until the cows come home about which values are right or wrong, in all probability no one will change their minds - all I know is that I really resent the attitude of some Canadian politicians who want the feds to come and meddle in our affairs through a Charter that has been forced down our throats and which is left unsigned by Quebec to this very day. We might very well see an uptick in sovereigntist sentiment if this happens.
"You can have your religious beliefs. Just don't... Like, follow them.... Too much.... So much that they make us uncomfortable, okie dokie? Isn't it cool that Quebec is so Egalitarian?"
One reason I suppose Quebec independence is this kind of question. I feel like we're tenants in Canada instead of homeowners and thus we're not completely free to set rules as a group. I value the ability of an individual to do what he wills less than I value the ability of the group to survive intact through thick and thin. I think the same is true for many of my fellows - for instance, we francophones do not have the right to send our kids to English schools up until the post-secondary level. If your mother tongue is French, you go to school in French and that's that, even though the anglophone minority in the province has a full school system that could accommodate us. It's to limit assimilation, but it does put a damper on individual choice. BTW, anyone can attend French school.
Another example : Quebec has a mandatory assistance law. If someone's life is in danger, you have a general duty to rescue and you are legally required to provide assistance unless it would also put your life in danger. If you don't, you can be held liable. In the rest of Canada I believe there is no such obligation and you can't be held liable for not providing assistance.
The values of a society are very grey. Aside from things like blood feuds, honour killings and marrying 10 years olds that we can all agree are not desirable in our societies, there is a considerable amount of slack to play with. Different societies do not value the same things at equivalent levels. That's completely fine, and there are different positives and negatives to ways of doing things.
I mean, if Quebec gained independence, it'd probably just be 100% dependent on the US and the EU economically, and thus just be a vassal state of some sort of NATO. Much like Canada today, except unlike Canada, the odds of Quebec being able to wrestle away EU/US influence is a pipe dream.
-
One reason I suppose Quebec independence is this kind of question. I feel like we're tenants in Canada instead of homeowners and thus we're not completely free to set rules as a group. I value the ability of an individual to do what he wills less than I value the ability of the group to survive intact through thick and thin. I think the same is true for many of my fellows - for instance, we francophones do not have the right to send our kids to English schools up until the post-secondary level. If your mother tongue is French, you go to school in French and that's that, even though the anglophone minority in the province has a full school system that could accommodate us. It's to limit assimilation, but it does put a damper on individual choice. BTW, anyone can attend French school.
Another example : Quebec has a mandatory assistance law. If someone's life is in danger, you have a general duty to rescue and you are legally required to provide assistance unless it would also put your life in danger. If you don't, you can be held liable. In the rest of Canada I believe there is no such obligation and you can't be held liable for not providing assistance.
The values of a society are very grey. Aside from things like blood feuds, honour killings and marrying 10 years olds that we can all agree are not desirable in our societies, there is a considerable amount of slack to play with. Different societies do not value the same things at equivalent levels. That's completely fine, and there are different positives and negatives to ways of doing things.
Not sure if intentional, but that "bright man" bit came off as hilariously sarcastic. :D
Anyway, while such conformity just doesn't sit well with me, no one can argue that it has achieved its desired results. If I were you though, I would be careful about going too far with it. The Afrikaner didn't intentionally set out to make the lives of the other races and cultures in the country hell, at first. It happened oh so slowly after many generations of not conforming, and the desire to protect our culture at all costs. I'm sure the original intent behind apartheid (which was, coincidentally, a British invention which we just perfected) wasn't all bad. There is a certain logic to it. It was a damn slippery slope, though, and we all know how it turned out. In many ways, Quebec culture reminds me of Afrikaans culture, except that we are still very religious. There is a certain degree of projecting my own fears and experiences in everything I'm saying, no doubt.
Anyway, to get back to the niqab ban, history has shown that the easiest way to induce change is to simply allow people to come to the conclusion that something is stupid, on their own. The harder you crack down, the more you inspire rebellion.
EDIT: Quoted the wrong one.
-
@Seroim I made that last post ina bit of an emotional mood, since laïcité is actually a thing I throughly 100% despise, and I was enraged that somebody would defend it on this site, let alone to prop up an islamophobic policy.
Listen, every society is going to enforce a moral code of some sort. That's why we have bans against public nudity and icnest even though they are theoretically harmless. They represent an abhorrent perversion to our concept of family, and to what we consider decent in public. The argument is not if society can enforce a moral code, because it's impossible for a society not to. It's whether a woman openly epxressing her religion by covering her face should be considered a societal perversion and stamped out. Your arguments seem to be:
1. The majority of Quebecois think niqabs are oppressive, therefore they are oppressive.
1. The niqab runs in heresy to the Quebec state religion of militant apathy and should be stamped out.
I'm sorry, I don't accept either. People should have the right to be open and loud about their religious beliefs. They should have the right to cover their faces, to wear cross necklaces, to wear kippahs, to pray in public. There is harm in people establishing astranglehold on all society with their religious beliefs, as what happened to pre-1960s Quebec, but forcing people to keep quiet about their religious beliefs and even abandon them if they are too non-conforming is a disgusting and obvious front against freedom of religion. Both are societally unhealthy state forays into religion, and ought to be curtailed.
Also, it's also important to note that according to statistics, Quebec is the most Islamophobic province in Canada, topping even notoriousy conservative Alberta. I can't help but wonder how much of this is playing into this utilization of "laïcité", and I also wonder how long it'll be until headveiling period - Which unlike Niqab is almost universally considered mandatory under Islam - Is considered " flaunting the most basic rules of "vivre-ensemble" and banned too, along with Sikh headcoverings. It's not like they're that far away from Niqabs in terms of showing one's religiosity.
-
The moment something becomes "mandatory" for all practitioners of a religion, like you're describing with the head-veiling period, then it crosses my line of don't-force-shit-on-people and I lose all sympathy for said argument, since it seeks to conform members of society just as much as this law does. In fact, my sympathies then shift to the state, since if the state hadn't intervened when religions were being excessively stupid, we'd still be in the dark ages.
EDIT: I also wonder how islamophobia is defined with the statistics you cite.
-
I finally have a bit of time to post my thoughts, so here they are:
In general, I believe that consenting adults should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't physically or materially harm a non-consenting party...to do otherwise is nothing short of forcing one person or group's values on another. You know, it wasn't so long ago that society decided that homosexuality wasn't acceptable in public life...or at all, for that matter. Because of that, I'm weary of the idea that a majority can disregard the individual rights of the minority.
However, I also believe that there can be practical reasons that have to be balanced against those rights. For example, a law requiring that people uncover their head when a visual identification is required to verify who they are and compare what they look like to their photo ID. But it sounds to me like "receiving or giving government services" is a lot broader than that.
More broadly, it appears that everyone agrees this ban is targeted toward a group of people that if we're being honest is disliked and even feared by segments of Western society that are propping up right-wing parties and candidates, especially those campaigning to reduce or eliminate immigration of refugees from the Middle East. If this is the case, than the real problem is discrimination against a group of people by the majority that supported this law, which I touched on a bit earlier.
-
The moment something becomes "mandatory" for all practitioners of a religion, like you're describing with the head-veiling period, then it crosses my line of don't-force-shit-on-people and I lose all sympathy for said argument, since it seeks to conform members of society just as much as this law does. In fact, my sympathies then shift to the state, since if the state hadn't intervened when religions were being excessively stupid, we'd still be in the dark ages.
EDIT: I also wonder how islamophobia is defined with the statistics you cite.
Oh my goodness, are you seriously arguing that it's okay for people's religious liberties to be curtailed because you think religions shouldn't tell people what to do? Is that seriously how bad Post-Christianity is now that a religion merely putting forth obligations is seen as a front on society? I finally have a bit of time to post my thoughts, so here they are:
In general, I believe that consenting adults should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't physically or materially harm a non-consenting party...to do otherwise is nothing short of forcing one person or group's values on another. You know, it wasn't so long ago that society decided that homosexuality wasn't acceptable in public life...or at all, for that matter. Because of that, I'm weary of the idea that a majority can disregard the individual rights of the minority.
However, I also believe that there can be practical reasons that have to be balanced against those rights. For example, a law requiring that people uncover their head when a visual identification is required to verify who they are and compare what they look like to their photo ID. But it sounds to me like "receiving or giving government services" is a lot broader than that.
More broadly, it appears that everyone agrees this ban is targeted toward a group of people that if we're being honest is disliked and even feared by segments of Western society that are propping up right-wing parties and candidates, especially those campaigning to reduce or eliminate immigration of refugees from the Middle East. If this is the case, than the real problem is discrimination against a group of people by the majority that supported this law, which I touched on a bit earlier.
It includes going to universities and hospitals.
-
'an affront to' not 'a front on', sorry i know that's nitpicky and makes it seem like that's some kind of criticism of your argument but no it just annoyed me and i thought i should point it out
ANYWAY
The fundamental problem perceived with laicite is that it disproportionately affects Muslims.
Well, yeah, that's the side-effect of fostering a secular society in your formerly religious country - once religion loses its place of primacy, it's a lot less important and a lot less people bother with it beyond the forms, so ostensibly Catholic people aren't nearly as Catholic as they were in the past. But back when it was first introduced, it disproportionately affected Christians, many of whom were probably exactly as offended as present-day Muslims about having their religious freedoms curtailed - the only difference is they didn't have social media to widely publicize their complaints about perceived violation of their civil liberties.
So it's true that the impact is disproportionately felt by Muslims nowadays, but this is a long-standing tradition of life in France (and evidently Quebec as I'm now learning) - it's not some measure thought up in the last 5 years specifically targeting Muslims (although yes, the head covering ban totally is and I object to that).
So to me the fundamental question about laicite becomes whether the established majority population has an obligation to abandon cultural and social traditions in order to appease new migrants, or whether new migrants should instead strive to assimilate into the culture of the state that they are moving to.
I personally favor the latter, because otherwise there's no way to maintain a national identity, since otherwise the moment a new group disagrees with some element of your culture, you are now obligated to abandon it. And at the risk of using one of those shitty slippery slope arguments, the end result of that would be states becoming just sort of a group of vaguely associated people who all live in broadly the same place, but otherwise have little in common.
I'm not suggesting that central governments should enforce assimilation - but I am saying that the people of a particular state are within their rights to exert some form of social pressure on migrants of any stripe (whether economic migrants, refugees, whatever) to either assimilate into the broader culture, tolerate this social pressure, or leave.
Obviously with the caveat that said social pressure not cross the line into overt harassment or violence, difficult as that may be to achieve.
-
'an affront to' not 'a front on', sorry i know that's nitpicky and makes it seem like that's some kind of criticism of your argument but no it just annoyed me and i thought i should point it out
ANYWAY
The fundamental problem perceived with laicite is that it disproportionately affects Muslims.
Well, yeah, that's the side-effect of fostering a secular society in your formerly religious country - once religion loses its place of primacy, it's a lot less important and a lot less people bother with it beyond the forms, so ostensibly Catholic people aren't nearly as Catholic as they were in the past. But back when it was first introduced, it disproportionately affected Christians, many of whom were probably exactly as offended as present-day Muslims about having their religious freedoms curtailed - the only difference is they didn't have social media to widely publicize their complaints about perceived violation of their civil liberties.
So it's true that the impact is disproportionately felt by Muslims nowadays, but this is a long-standing tradition of life in France (and evidently Quebec as I'm now learning) - it's not some measure thought up in the last 5 years specifically targeting Muslims (although yes, the head covering ban totally is and I object to that).
So to me the fundamental question about laicite becomes whether the established majority population has an obligation to abandon cultural and social traditions in order to appease new migrants, or whether new migrants should instead strive to assimilate into the culture of the state that they are moving to.
I personally favor the latter, because otherwise there's no way to maintain a national identity, since otherwise the moment a new group disagrees with some element of your culture, you are now obligated to abandon it. And at the risk of using one of those shitty slippery slope arguments, the end result of that would be states becoming just sort of a group of vaguely associated people who all live in broadly the same place, but otherwise have little in common.
I'm not suggesting that central governments should enforce assimilation - but I am saying that the people of a particular state are within their rights to exert some form of social pressure on migrants of any stripe (whether economic migrants, refugees, whatever) to either assimilate into the broader culture, tolerate this social pressure, or leave.
Obviously with the caveat that said social pressure not cross the line into overt harassment or violence, difficult as that may be to achieve.
lol laicite isn't "Quebec culture". If that's the case, Roe Vs Wade is American culture.
And no. Immigrants aren't obligated to assimilate under any circumstances. No one should be forced to abandon their parents' culture in order to gain a quality of life. I absolutely do not stand for the rhetoric pushed against Jews in the early 20th century be used against Muslims today. But either way, we're talking about a religion, not a culture. A Muslim can assimilate and be a Francophone without losing their religion. under that same logic, non-Christians should be forced to convert to Christianity upon immigrating to America.
-
lol laicite isn't "Quebec culture". If that's the case, Roe Vs Wade is American culture.
And no. Immigrants aren't obligated to assimilate under any circumstances. No one should be forced to abandon their parents' culture in order to gain a quality of life. I absolutely do not stand for the rhetoric pushed against Jews in the early 20th century be used against Muslims today. But either way, we're talking about a religion, not a culture. A Muslim can assimilate and be a Francophone without losing their religion. under that same logic, non-Christians should be forced to convert to Christianity upon immigrating to America.
Fine, I phrased it poorly. My point was that a high degree of secularism was an important part of the culture. People don't go to Saudi Arabia or Malaysia demanding that they stop being a fundamentally Muslim states - why should people get to go to France or Quebec demanding that they stop being fundamentally secular states?
But I disagree with you as far as immigrants assimilating, although we may have different notions of it. When I say assimilation or integration, I mean that wherever the hell you're from, you think of yourself as being fundamentally French (or Canadian or American or wherever the hell), rather than going to some country with the express intention of continuing to be an Uzbek or Somali or whatever your origin was. Look at Singapore - essentially everyone from there is originally an immigrant. They (I find it hard to say 'we' when I'm in another country where I'm also a citizen) see themselves as Singaporean Chinese, or Malay, or Indian, or whatever. Most people in America see themselves as ____-American, whether that blank is Irish, Polish, Jewish, African, whatever.
Evidently you have the impression that integration is abandoning all links to your culture in favor of some homogeneous whole. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. But at the very least there should be some fundamental values that you share with everyone else.
-
lol laicite isn't "Quebec culture". If that's the case, Roe Vs Wade is American culture.
And no. Immigrants aren't obligated to assimilate under any circumstances. No one should be forced to abandon their parents' culture in order to gain a quality of life. I absolutely do not stand for the rhetoric pushed against Jews in the early 20th century be used against Muslims today. But either way, we're talking about a religion, not a culture. A Muslim can assimilate and be a Francophone without losing their religion. under that same logic, non-Christians should be forced to convert to Christianity upon immigrating to America.
Fine, I phrased it poorly. My point was that a high degree of secularism was an important part of the culture. People don't go to Saudi Arabia or Malaysia demanding that they stop being a fundamentally Muslim states - why should people get to go to France or Quebec demanding that they stop being fundamentally secular states?
But I disagree with you as far as immigrants assimilating, although we may have different notions of it. When I say assimilation or integration, I mean that wherever the hell you're from, you think of yourself as being fundamentally French (or Canadian or American or wherever the hell), rather than going to some country with the express intention of continuing to be an Uzbek or Somali or whatever your origin was. Look at Singapore - essentially everyone from there is originally an immigrant. They (I find it hard to say 'we' when I'm in another country where I'm also a citizen) see themselves as Singaporean Chinese, or Malay, or Indian, or whatever. Most people in America see themselves as ____-American, whether that blank is Irish, Polish, Jewish, African, whatever.
Evidently you have the impression that integration is abandoning all links to your culture in favor of some homogeneous whole. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. But at the very least there should be some fundamental values that you share with everyone else.
Yeah, America ain't a good exmaple of successfully integrating multiple cultures. More accurately, it's melted multiple cultures down to a flimsy, marketable piece of slime with no genuine ties to any culture whatsoever.
Also, it's hard to find a Muslim in America who doesn't despise Saudi Arabia, and al-Azhar which is the most powerful Sunni Islamic institution in the world has strongly defended Egypt's Christian community. The Quran states plainly that nobody can be coerced into Islam, and any Muslim majority country which attempts to stifle the liberities of Non-Muslims in the name of defending Islam is actively going against their own religion. So no, I criticize non-Muslim majority countries which attempt to coerce Muslims out of Islam and I criticize Muslim majority countries which attempt to coerce Non-Muslims into Islam. Both are commiting acts of evil and infringing on one's god given liberities.
-
The moment something becomes "mandatory" for all practitioners of a religion, like you're describing with the head-veiling period, then it crosses my line of don't-force-shit-on-people and I lose all sympathy for said argument, since it seeks to conform members of society just as much as this law does. In fact, my sympathies then shift to the state, since if the state hadn't intervened when religions were being excessively stupid, we'd still be in the dark ages.
EDIT: I also wonder how islamophobia is defined with the statistics you cite.
Oh my goodness, are you seriously arguing that it's okay for people's religious liberties to be curtailed because you think religions shouldn't tell people what to do? Is that seriously how bad Post-Christianity is now that a religion merely putting forth obligations is seen as a front on society?
I can't speak for society, only for myself. But yeah. I don't like religions obligating anyone to do anything. It starts with small gestures and ceremonies, and people become so accustomed to doing whatever the fuck their church order tells them to do, that atrocities are committed for no other reason than "my god/priest/angel/flying-spaghetti-monster ordered me to do it." To give a relatively extreme example: many men still living today think it would be a fine idea to cut out women's clitorises, and they view this as a good thing, since women would not be tempted to do evil things. We're talking about little girls who get mutilated, and they have no say in the matter. Do you think shit this extreme just happens one random day? Nope. It happens over a long time that people don't think for themselves and just do whatever their local religion tells them to do. So yeah, being forced to veil your head doesn't have nearly as disastrous consequences as the aforementioned example, but it's a start. Frankly, Muslim women ought not to submit to this stuff. Nor should Christian women be forced to submit to any random religious practice telling them what to wear or how to behave.
-
The moment something becomes "mandatory" for all practitioners of a religion, like you're describing with the head-veiling period, then it crosses my line of don't-force-shit-on-people and I lose all sympathy for said argument, since it seeks to conform members of society just as much as this law does. In fact, my sympathies then shift to the state, since if the state hadn't intervened when religions were being excessively stupid, we'd still be in the dark ages.
EDIT: I also wonder how islamophobia is defined with the statistics you cite.
Oh my goodness, are you seriously arguing that it's okay for people's religious liberties to be curtailed because you think religions shouldn't tell people what to do? Is that seriously how bad Post-Christianity is now that a religion merely putting forth obligations is seen as a front on society?
I can't speak for society, only for myself. But yeah. I don't like religions obligating anyone to do anything. It starts with small gestures and ceremonies, and people become so accustomed to doing whatever the fuck their church order tells them to do, that atrocities are committed for no other reason than "my god/priest/angel/flying-spaghetti-monster ordered me to do it." To give a relatively extreme example: many men still living today think it would be a fine idea to cut out women's clitorises, and they view this as a good thing, since women would not be tempted to do evil things. We're talking about little girls who get mutilated, and they have no say in the matter. Do you think shit this extreme just happens one random day? Nope. It happens over a long time that people don't think for themselves and just do whatever their local religion tells them to do. So yeah, being forced to veil your head doesn't have nearly as disastrous consequences as the aforementioned example, but it's a start. Frankly, Muslim women ought not to submit to this stuff. Nor should Christian women be forced to submit to any random religious practice telling them what to wear or how to behave.
You've just outlawed religion. Period. There is no such thing as a religion which doesn't tell you to do somethinng. Whether we are talking about Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Neo-Paganism, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc. Eveyr religon - Every religion - Demands certain obligations from you. Whether it's the obligation to go to church in Christianity, or the obligation to leave your hair uncut in Sikhism, or the obligation to pray five times a day in Islam, these obligations are non-negotiable andto stray away from them is considered sinful, and it should. Religions demanding obligations isn't extremist, it's the nature of religions. they're systems of philosophical law that are quite far reaching, and to reeduce religion into a nebulous form of "spirituality" as what's increasingly being done in the West is to not have a religion at all. And a government which bans any religious obligation is a government that has de facto enforced State Atheism.
But I'm sure that's alright with you. You're a hip kid. You don't obey the authority of any old 2,000 year old book, and you think you're smarter for it. 'Tis the natural conclusion of thinking agnostic religious apathy is the only pure form of spiritual belief and can never be manipulated toward repressive and totalitarian ends, I guess.
You know better than to think that a woman believing she needs to cover her hair to stay true to her faith isn't a slippery slope to suicide bombings and witch trials. And leave that "Flying Spaghetti Monster" garbage back in 2012, it's overdone to oblivion now.
-
I don't recall attacking you, and would appreciate it if you didn't make this quite so personal.
Religious scriptures sure make a lot of demands, but modern religious institutions, not so much. Many modern churches make no demands on their followers. They've just sort of become little communities where people can come to pray and, if they feel so inclined, give money to help the poor. I love it, even if I think they go against everything their religious book tells them to do. I have a feeling most of them doubt the existence of their god, but are still scared of the implications, so they just choose to use the religion for positive ends. In so doing, they come a lot closer to the original vision for Christianity: love all, to help all, and leave the laws of the first testament behind.
-
I don't recall attacking you, and would appreciate it if you didn't make this quite so personal.
Religious scriptures sure make a lot of demands, but modern religious institutions, not so much. Many modern churches make no demands on their followers. They've just sort of become little communities where people can come to pray and, if they feel so inclined, give money to help the poor. I love it, even if I think they go against everything their religious book tells them to do. I have a feeling most of them doubt the existence of their god, but are still scared of the implications, so they just choose to use the religion for positive ends. In so doing, they come a lot closer to the original vision for Christianity: love all, to help all, and leave the laws of the first testament behind.
And who here said anything about religious institutions dictating things? All I said was that veiling is near universally considered obligatory to Islamic jurists - Jurists being Fuqaha or trained scholars.
Not that, say, the Roman Catholic Church saying failing to go to church on Sunday is a sin is a road leading up to the crusades.
-
I don't recall attacking you, and would appreciate it if you didn't make this quite so personal.
Religious scriptures sure make a lot of demands, but modern religious institutions, not so much. Many modern churches make no demands on their followers. They've just sort of become little communities where people can come to pray and, if they feel so inclined, give money to help the poor. I love it, even if I think they go against everything their religious book tells them to do. I have a feeling most of them doubt the existence of their god, but are still scared of the implications, so they just choose to use the religion for positive ends. In so doing, they come a lot closer to the original vision for Christianity: love all, to help all, and leave the laws of the first testament behind.
And who here said anything about religious institutions dictating things? All I said was that veiling is near universally considered obligatory to Islamic jurists - Jurists being Fuqaha or trained scholars.
Not that, say, the Roman Catholic Church saying failing to go to church on Sunday is a sin is a road leading up to the crusades.
Once more, I disagree. What happened to people who didn't go to church? Violence was the norm against anyone perceived as a heretic, and the punishments were damn severe. It is no surprise such a violent and ignorant system thought the crusades was a good idea. And this isn't linked to religion, exclusively. Any system where people are taught to do things for no other reason than 'because I said so' easily leads to atrocities being committed.
-
I don't recall attacking you, and would appreciate it if you didn't make this quite so personal.
Religious scriptures sure make a lot of demands, but modern religious institutions, not so much. Many modern churches make no demands on their followers. They've just sort of become little communities where people can come to pray and, if they feel so inclined, give money to help the poor. I love it, even if I think they go against everything their religious book tells them to do. I have a feeling most of them doubt the existence of their god, but are still scared of the implications, so they just choose to use the religion for positive ends. In so doing, they come a lot closer to the original vision for Christianity: love all, to help all, and leave the laws of the first testament behind.
And who here said anything about religious institutions dictating things? All I said was that veiling is near universally considered obligatory to Islamic jurists - Jurists being Fuqaha or trained scholars.
Not that, say, the Roman Catholic Church saying failing to go to church on Sunday is a sin is a road leading up to the crusades.
Once more, I disagree. What happened to people who didn't go to church? Violence was the norm against anyone perceived as a heretic, and the punishments were damn severe. It is no surprise such a violent and ignorant system thought the crusades was a good idea. And this isn't linked to religion, exclusively. Any system where people are taught to do things for no other reason than 'because I said so' easily leads to atrocities being committed.
Yeah, notice that I didn't say anything about the RCC establishing physical punishments for those not attending church? Acting as if any sort of religious organization leads to theocracy is no more rational than acting as if any sort of welfare system leads to Bolshevism.
-
Let us not beat around the bush. Once something is declared sinful, anyone who commits said 'sin' faces some form of negative outcome, either by being shunned, or in more extreme cases, being physically punished. Even when this doesn't happen, most religions cover it with some hellish punishment to follow after death for sinners, and the entire religious scripture also happens to include all sorts of clauses to instill fear and unquestioning loyalty to parents and religious leaders, meaning they become a lot easier to convince of the necessity for committing atrocities if it serves some all-mighty dictator's whims.
EDIT: Calling a religion a philosophy isn't entirely true, either. The nature of philosophy is that there are no fixed rules, and everything can and should be questioned. A philosopher is expected to abandon his belief when faced with clear evidence or a strong argument for why it should be abandoned.
If a religion wants to be called a philosophy, then its scripture should be added to, even now. Dissenting opinions should be welcomed and recorded.
-
This is why I do not like religious discussions. It gets personal and fast.
-
I don't know, to be honest I'm pretty proud of the poo I managed to fling everywhere.
The thing with this topic is that it's fun to state your position and explain why, but there really isn't that much of a debate to be had. I say yeah I'm all for it, explain why, then people come and tell me about how this violates freedom of religion or individual freedom of action and the only thing I can answer is "yeah, so?"
In a debate of values, they will inevitably collide. But no one's gonna change their world view, because there are multiple good answers.
-
Yeah, I had a lot on my mind I was considering posting, but I decided, eh, fuck it.