View Topic

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 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 - 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 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 - 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.

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.