A hijab is a good enough token of faith (even if it was banned in Turkish universities for most of the XXth century)

A niqab is a statement of political Islam or a submission to tribal customs. There is no way it can be argued it is a religious obligation on the female believers.

Therefore Trudeau has in essence validated that a secular Republic should back down when faced with communautarist claims which are not even essential in the ideological framework of the concerned community.

What to say? Burqas next?

It simply does not matter what you think the clothing is a statement of. And it does not matter what argument you care to present that it is not a religious obligation of the woman in question.

The only thing that matters is if that woman believes it is.

Therefore Trudeau has in essence validated that a secular Republic should back down when faced with communautarist claims which are not even essential in the ideological framework of the concerned community.

No, he has upheld the extremely secular idea that the government doesn't arbitrarily dictate personal wardrobe choices to people absent sufficiently compelling need. And people's objections to their perceived religious or cultural implications of said wardrobe comes nowhere near such a need.


Don't like it? You're free to do so. I don't like it either.

You and I are NOT however entitled to have the government enforce our values on women on our behalf.

Or an Illinois Nazi would be free to come in Nazi uniform?

Wearing a full face cover at a secular oath taking is a political statement.

Like I said, it is not a religious requirement, it is the uniform of radical Islam.

Or an Illinois Nazi would be free to come in Nazi uniform?

A Nazi uniform is an *explicit* threatening gesture towards specific minority groups in a manner that is far removed from any objection you or I may have to a Niqab.

Wearing a full face cover at a secular oath taking is a political statement.

Not if she's simply obeying what she believes her general religious wardrobe requirements are it isn't.

The Quran is a comprehensive way of life, which is even etymologically political.

That's what believers say, and not just the radicals. It's the doctrine.

As such, wearing a full face veil is a political statement.

Just like a Nazi uniform would be.

And I've seen nothing about this case that made it one.

Politis = the life of the city = the way of life = Islam. Mainstream Islam is political.

I was quite accomodating. Out of respect for people who are moderate muslims, I stated that even an islamic hijab showing th eface would be OK.

But the full faced niqab is a statement of radical Islam, a radical political statement.

Which is why I equated a niqab to a Nazi uniform (outside places where it is forcibly enforced by the religious police, like the charming religious police forces of KSA, Iran, Aceh province, etc..)

...does not dictate the motivations of every action someone else takes.

That is why I am against the doctrine, not people.

But I must note 50% of the believers want to apply the Sharia.

In that sense, religion does "dictate the motivations of every action" 50% of believers take

...I suspect you're playing fast and loose with coming up with percentages.

Second, how did you determine this woman was in that "50%"?

Third, you're still just basically saying "I object to Islam, therefore I want the government to force you not to wear a Niqab " Which is a total violation of church/state separation. You do not get to use the government to just arbitrarily enforce your views on religion on other people absent some compelling need and you have still provided exactly squat in the compelling need department.

Trudeau is completely correct on this issue.

(1) 50% = Worldwide Pew poll.
First graph on this page http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

(2) I don't know what to tell you. If YOU cannot see that someone wearing not a mere hijab but a full face niqab at a swearing in ceremony is making a radical statement, I think you just refuse to see. fyi, the niqab is completely forbidden in a handful of African countries because those countries have understood that said niqab is a statement of radical defiance. From memory, Cameroon, Senegal, and at least a third one. Racist countries?

(3) My objection to all religions is not the point. The fact some strains of religion are in radical opposition to democracy and tolerance is. In the same way that Nazism is opposed to democracy and tolerance, the niqab is no better than a KKK uniform. Just like radical Islam, the KKK claims to want the welfare of its adherents. But in both cases, lots of non adherents should be worried.

(1) The 50% value you are referring to in that poll refers to Muslims in majority Muslim nations wanting sharia law applied in their own countries.

Since a lot of the people who immigrate to other nations do so for a reason, why would you think a Muslim immigrant who is leaving those countries where that is a widespread belief to live in Canada where it is very clearly NOT is likely to fall within that 50%. Would it not be plausible that she's immigrating precisely because she wants to go live somewhere where she would be more comfortable with prevailing political opinions (which does not require she conform in every single way)?


(2) Saying, paraphrasing... "I don't know what to tell you I'm just right and don't know why you can't see it" is the opposite of an answer, although I will grant you it is an easy response. It is always easy to simply decide that a complex issue that is a mix of long standing cultural and religious traditions is as simplistic as "if they wear this they're making a radical statement so don't let them wear it". But like most oversimplifications it breaks down when you shift from broad generalizations to dealing with the individual.

There are PLENTY of Muslim women who wear a niqab for the sole reason that they believe it is a modesty requirement of their faith. I think that's ridiculous as I consider pretty much all religious traditions ridiculous but you or I thinking it is ridiculous (or insisting on projecting political statements onto it that may or may not actually be there) is in no ways grounds for us to demand the government act to enforce our views on others.

And the Niqab is NOT banned in Cameroon or Senegal because it is a "radical political statement". They banned it because Boko Haram had a couple people take advantage of the concealment of the garb to hide explosives. Pretty sure we can deal with the threat of people bringing bombs to swearing in ceremonies without having to pointlessly dictate what they be wearing while they're speaking the oath.


(3) No, the fact that some strains of religion are in radical oppostion to democracy only becomes relevant if you can explain to me how you know that this woman is actively pursuing that agenda by wearing the garb. Which you can't. Whereas the KKK has a an extremely homogeneous ideology when it comes to points of contention like the persecution of racial minorities and thus their garb is easily identifiable as a hate symbol the niqab comes from a far more complicated religious and cultural history that goes back centuries and just the fact that a woman is wearing one does not automatically tell you they hate democracy or something.

HOWEVER, for the sake of argument let me point out that EVEN IF IT DID a person advocating, peaceably, for a political viewpoint is not in and of itself grounds for the government to forcible dictate their wardrobe choice either! So long as they are not threatening or otherwise committing some onerous assault upon another person or group in the process. That is in fact one of the freaking rights guaranteed BY that government. Or are you just kind of overlooking that fact?

I will answer point by point, but I will express upfront a doubt I have about your stance:
are you 1- playing with concepts to see if you can win a debate 2- willfully oblivious to the real intentional danger radical islam poses, or 3- defending all free speech however dangerous it might be.
Open disclosure: I never believed in god, so I'm not bitter about having been conned in my youth. I have a polite disregard for all religions, but I have seen IRL the evil some ideologies can cause. Racist ideologies and religious ideologies. I'm not giving one inch to those.

Your points:

(1) 50% of Muslims want to see the Sharia applied.
That is true in Muslim countries, which represent the bulk of the Muslim population.
In the West, numbers are lower, granted, but remain alarmingly high (wiki):

(2) Niqab as a statement of political Islam:
I will grant you some women can wear the niqab because of their conditioning. However I repeat it is not a religious obligation, and even when the objective is not political, it ends up being political as these women in effect put a clothes wall between them and the rest of society. All this was well put in a Huffington article by a Muslim which explained why women should not wear a niqab at oath taking ceremonies:
Which is why African countries ban the niqab: hiding one's identity is not always done for harmless reasons.

As for my other point, I find your attempt at decoupling the niqab and political Islam disingenuous or naive. A woman wearing the niqab is nearly always a literalist. Literalists want to apply the Sharia. The Sharia is political. Bad politics, imho.

(3) the niqab, as offensive as a KKK uniform
The islamist ideology is at least as well codified as that of the KKK, if not more. That's the Alice in Wonderland aspect: generations of 'scholars' have built upon the 'visions' of a 7th century Arab merchant. And ruled over myriad of things, down to how to hold food or go to the toilet. Or who to chop the hand to. Or who to lapidate. The niqab is the proud affirmation that stoning people is OK. Not much more humane than KKK 'policies'. The KKK hanged blacks? Iran hangs gays. Is one better than the other?

I will answer point by point, but I will express upfront a doubt I have about your stance:
are you 1- playing with concepts to see if you can win a debate 2- willfully oblivious to the real intentional danger radical islam poses, or 3- defending all free speech however dangerous it might be.

I never bother "playing with concepts to see if I can win a debate". Pointless waste of time. I only respond to discussion threads when I have something to say, I don't respond just to see if I can entertain myself with some kind of rhetorical competition.

And I am certainly a long way from oblivious to the dangers posed by radical Islam, however I will point out again that you are begging the question by characterizing anyone wearing a niqab as "radical" in a sense that is synonymous with dangerous. Radical in the sense of conforming to a cultural/religious practice that is in my mind stupid and insulting to the dignity of women, sure. But that is a totally different issue... and one where once again my opinion that it is insulting to women does not entitle us to dictate wardrobe choices TO women any more than some idiot fundie Christian thinking women wearing bikinis is insulting to women entitles them to have the government force women to over up at the beach if they don't want to.

And the question begging applies again with your "no matter how dangerous" description of the speech in question. you are assuming that her motivations are dangerous without ever having established it by appealing to gross generalizations.


Moving on...

(1)

You have not advanced your argument. So the numbers are "alarmingly high" in western countries... with "alarmingly" being defined as significantly below 50%.

So... you have referred again to a statistic we have already referenced. But you cannot apply statistics to individuals to determine their personal beliefs and motivations however. You simply do not know whether this woman falls in the "wants Sharia law for everyone" camp or not, and simply the act of wearing a niqab does not tell you that. You are simply assuming it. And that is a far cry from sufficient justification to have the government enforce your views on the wardrobe of other people. Especialy considering that EVEN IF SHE DID want Sharia law for everyone peacefully expressing an opinion is not an actionable offense!

(2)

Wearing the niqab is not obligatory for SHIA.

For Sunni, it depends on which tradition you follow. For somel of them yes it is considered obligatory.

And lots of things are "not always" done for harmless reasons. That is not an argument that justifies the government dictating her wardrobe in a situation where nobody has suggested she is some kind of physical threat to anyone around her. If she was she would never have been allowed to immigrate in the first place!


(3)

Saying that the niqab is a statement that stoning people is ok is like saying wearing a cross is a statement that.... well... stoning people is ok. Since that's in the bible too.

Not that simple. The KKK was created for the one and sole purpose of racial persecution. Islam, for all that I find the entire religion to be absurd and am of the opinion the world would be better off without it... is a little more complicated than that.

Which is why I am still puzzled by your stance. Traces of angelism? Anyway:

(1) 50% of Muslims worldwide want the application of the Sharia.
It's 40% in Britain. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
And every new refugee increases the population which wants to apply the Sharia.

(2) the niqab is a political statement
The niqab is not a religious obligation. Anywhere. It is a tribal interpretation in conservative patriarchal societies like Saudi Arabia (niqab) or Afghanistan (burqa)
Not even in increasingly reactionary Pakistan is the niqab compulsory.
Someone wearing a niqab at an oath ceremony in a secular western country is making its allegiance to literal Islam plain. And literal Islam is antidemocratcic, antisecular. Hence the problem: that lady by her clothing contradicts the words of the pledge. Because hee allegiance goes to the literal word of the Quran, well ahead of her allegiance to "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors".

NB: you made the point this particular woman might have her own personal views which would not fit exactly what I described above. Laws are not made to tailor exceptions, but to fit the general case. Which my description reflects.

(3) the niqab is equivalent to a KKK uniform
The KKK hates blacks, minorities, Catholics, etc
The Sharia hates gays, apostates, Jews, polytheists, atheists, adulterers.
The Sharia and the KKK lead to the death of the persons targeted.
I don't see a difference.

I just keep waiting for you to get to the part where you stoptelling me over and over again that x percentage of Muslims in Y location are in favor of Sharia law, or making assertions that a niqab is always a political statement when it is not, and move on to the point where you draw the connection between any of that and the justification that any individual Muslims freedom of peaceful personal expression or speech should be restricted by the government.

And you just keep not doing that.

The niqab is not a religious obligation. Anywhere.

As I have pointed out several times there are multiple Sunni religious traditions that damn well do consider it obligatory.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81bb

"Sunni
The opinions of the four traditional Sunni schools of jurisprudence are as follows:

Maliki: In the Maliki madhhab, the face and the hands of a woman are not awrah; therefore covering the face is not obligatory. However, Maliki scholars have stated that it is highly recommended (mustahabb) for women to cover their faces.

Hanafi: The Hanafi school does not consider a woman's face to be awrah; however it is still obligatory (wajib) for a woman to cover her face. While the Hanafi school has not completely forbidden a male’s gaze towards a female’s face when there exists absolutely no fear of attraction, the woman has no way of knowing whether the gazes directed towards her are free of desire or not, especially when she is out in public. The Hanafi school has thus obliged women to cover their faces in front of strangers.[12][13]

Shafi'i: The Shafi'i school has had two well-known positions on this issue. The first view is that covering the face is obligatory at all times when in presence of non-mahram men.[14] The second view is that covering the face is preferred in general, but obligatory only in a time of fitnah (where men do not lower their gaze; or when a woman is very attractive).[15]

Hanbali: According to the Hanbali school, there are two differing views on whether a woman's whole body is awrah or not. Mālik, Awzāʿī, and Shafiʿī suggest that the awrah of a woman is her entire body excluding her face and her hands. Hence, covering the face would not be obligatory (fard) in this madhhab.[16] According to scholars like Tirmidhī and Ḥārith b. Hishām, however, all of a woman's body is awra, including her face, hands, and even fingernails. There is a dispensation though that allows a woman to expose her face and hands, e.g. when asking for her hand in marriage, because it is the centre of beauty.[17]

The modern Salafi movement (with the only exception of Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani) state that it is obligatory for a woman to cover her entire body when in public or in presence of non-mahram men.[18][19] Some interpretations say that a veil is not compulsory in front of blind, asexual or gay men.[20][21][22]

Salafi women in several countries, including Saudi Arabia, veil their faces because they believe the face of a woman is considered awrah. Wearing the niqab, however, is not exclusive to the Salafi movement, and other Sunni Muslims may regard niqab either as mubah (permitted), mustahabb (recommended, an additional act of worship) or fard (obligatory)"


You can keep denying the reality of the situation all you like, it isn't changing.

The Sharia and the KKK lead to the death of the persons targeted.
I don't see a difference.

Perhaps because you refuse to deal with the fact that wearing a niqab does not automatically indicate the wearer wants to impose Sharia on everyone fucking else. As even your own cited poll numbers show seeing as none of them say "100%".

Whereas *everybody* wearing a KKK uniform is supporting overt racism by definition.

(1) 50% of Muslims support applying the Sharia
I already provided the links
- over 50% Muslims in 'muslim' countries support the application of Sharia
- 40% in the UK
- I now add it's 50% in the US today:


(2) the niqab is not a religious obligation
I could cite lots of world famous scholars who say that (Tariq Ramadan or Hamza Yusuf)
But it will be enough to note that very few countries actually enforce a full face veil
The salafi/wahhabi Gulf States and Afghanistan.
Do you think th eother 50 'muslim' countries are following an haram ideology?

(3) the niqab being the equivalent of the KKK uniform : already answered
A vast majority of women wearing the niqab are adherents of literalist, political Islam.
And literalist, political Islam is as segregationist and violent as anything the KKK cooked up.

You just keep repeating yourself and never making any argument.

"X% want Sharia for everyone "

I don't give a shit unless X = 100. Do you understand? Because if X does not equal 100 then you don't know if this specific individual is in the "wants Sharia for everyone" group. Do you understand how percentages work?

"No government requires the niqab!"

I don't give a shit again. We're not debating is it's a LEGAL obligation. We're debating if it's a RELIGIOUS one. And as I already have shown you in multiple Sunni traditions it fucking well is. Whether any government imposes it as an obligation is totally irrelevant.


"The vast majority are adherents of literalist Islam"

Don't. Give. A. Shit.

Last I checked being an adherent of a religion wasn't an actionable offense that justified the government restricting your fucking rights. Being an adherent of any flavor of Islam does not justify government intervention in anyone's lives so long as they're not forcing *other people* to be adherents too. And her just wanting to wear her damn clothes without requiring everyone else at the ceremony to do so isn't doing that. To equate tge niqab with KKK robes you would have to establish the latter connection and you can't because it isn't there.

(1) 50% of Muslims want the Sharia
I gave you evidence of it (+/-10%) for the Muslim countries, the US, the UK.
You answer "I don't give a shit unless X = 100." That's angelism.
If X was 99.9%, would you still not give a shit?
At 50%, you don't give a shit? 50% is a lot of people against equal rights and free speech.

(2) the full face niqab is not a religious obligation
From a Muslim source: the highest theological authority in Islam, Al-Azhar University, says the niqab is not a religious obligation: "The niqab is supported by Salafis and other religious trends in Egypt. Niqab, the full face cover, has been a contested issue in Egypt and elsewhere. For both security and cultural reasons, the topic was hotly debated and was the center of numerous contestations, even confrontations, between Islamists on one side, and liberals, secularists, and Christians on the other.Even the official religious establishment in Egypt, represented by Al-Azhar and Dar Al-Ifta, were not supportive of niqab."http://www.islamopediaonline.org/country-profile/egypt/transnational-influences-and-islam/niqab-issue

(3) the niqab is a violent political statement on par with a KKK uniform
From the Muslim source (Islamopedia) quote above, please note the supporters of the niqab are the Salafists/Islamists. Salafists and Islamists are political movement, political Islam.
Empirically, almost all women whho would want to wear the niqab in the West (by opposition to a mainstrean hijab) are literalists, usually Salafists, some sympathetic to Islamism.

If you do not accept that on the grounds that you "don't give a shit unless X = 100.", then you should acknowledge the same is true of the KKK. it is highly likely some wear the KKK uniform to conform to groupthink in remote tiny redneck enclaves, and that their eventual racist talk is just a rite of belonging to the group. Then, on the grounds of your attitude, let's have KKK or Nazi uniforms because a tiny minority of the KKK or Nazi Party are just innocent followers.

Let's take this one issue at a time. Do you understand what is wrong with the following "logic"?

50% of people who wear green shoes like pasta.

You wear green shoes.

Therefore you like pasta."

Yes or no please. Do you know what was wrong with that "reasoning" or not?

If the answer is yes then STOP FUCKING TELLING ME what polls say 50% of Muslims believe or want because it doesn't mean shit when we're talking about one woman's individual case and whether her rights should be restricted by the government.

So what is it? Yes? Or do we have to have a basic introductory course on how statistics and logic work?

That's an extremely poor source to use for any serious discussion.

I only see the one source in your post.

I am saying that all three polls point to roughly half the Muslim population agreeing with the implementation of Sharia ('Muslim' countries, US, UK)

Out of curiosity, to double check, I searched for France: 54% of Muslims want the Sharia

Source = Christian website http://chretienslibres.over-blog.com/article-les-musulmans-francais-un-sondage-aux-resultats-inquietants-111917892.html

Having two other barely related polls from other organizations does not legitimize the validity of the poll on U.S. muslims from a source with zero credibility .

1- while you are undoubtedly correct that my other polls in other countries have no direct bearing on the credibility or not of the specific poll in the US, the pattern does hint toward the possibility the US poll might not be far off the mark. If Muslims in 'Muslim' countries, and France, and the UK, support Sharia, the likelihood the percentage of US Muslims supporting the Sharia being far lower is low.

2- at any rate, the UK and French polls show that a Muslim population which is now second or third generation immigrants retain alarmingly high support for Sharia. Worse, in Britain and France, the young are more radical than the elder ones. All in all, it does show Islam doesn't mellow down in secular democracies.

I think.

laïcité is now associated with warmongering, division, and telling the 7 billion people sympathetic to the Parisians to piss up a ladder