State sponsored intolerance for religion under the guise of freedom.

That would be ok?

Why are you asking that? It has zero relevance to what I said.

you just might see the relevance.
Or not.

Edited to add:

And if you know any of the history of Quebec, and the PQ in particular, regarding Muslims and religious issues, my comment might become clearer.

Or not.

Not Quebec, but institutions, you'd be ok with that, right?

describe an hypothetical situation.

Your reluctance to respond to it gives all the answer that is needed.

Many Islamic women don't wear face covering. It's not a part of the religion.

A non-existent threat serving as cover for anti-Muslim intolerance.

But I think it is pretty clear the Quebec law is targeting Muslims specifically. I'm not cool with that.

And yes, for the anglophone only group, it does indeed mean Islamophobia.

Do you have any response to my questions?

Under what circumstances is one allowed to conceal their identity? And should religion grant special rights in that regard?

How about banning coverings on the beach?

The notion of backing up your own claims has eluded you, but maybe you understand how to answer questions.

Read it again.

I asked what compelling reason there might be offered in support of a ban that is obviously directed against Muslims.
Now, in the interest of dialogue, if you believe that this is a good action, it is up to you to offer compelling reasons in support of this position.

Answer my questions.

Under what circumstances is one allowed to conceal their identity?

Should religion grant special rights in that regard?

The law generally does not require that anyone reveal their identity.

I regularly see people wearing medical type masks that conceal the face.

I see people wearing helmets with face shields.

I see women wearing scarves.

I see people wearing large sunglasses.

And, importantly for context, I am also well aware of the long history of anti-religious sentiment that is prevalent among some in the province of Québec.

"when covering one's face is part of one's official job duties" - that's a good one!

Sunglasses, yep, though they conceal the eyes, they aren't concealing the entire face, so not sure they count, but whatevs. I'll give it to you.

What else?

You can now choose to answer mine question about compelling reason, or you can avoid it because there is no compelling reason, other than blatant Islamophobia.

I am betting that you will avoid it. Given that another (#2) has responded the same way I did, what will you do?

When they have to as part of their job duties?

I just want confirmation that's what you're saying, given your demonstrated history of "debate."

You are framing your question to attack those who wear the veil.

You must have had some reason to post this example of intolerance, and another responder agreed with me that it is intolerance thinly disguised as something else.

But we can use a different phrase if you are choosing to get hung up on it.

Obscure their face - is that acceptable?

You pick one that doesn't offend you.

BTW, that this is an "example of intolerance" is merely your opinion and is not proven at all. That's what I'd like to get to the bottom of. So let's get past the phrase you don't like, and pick a new one. Go.

Many readers did not respond with an opinion. And, as the article explains, Canadians are also divided, with the Federal Prime Minister saying that it is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Nice try, but this attempt must be judged a failure. It is discrimination against, and intolerance for, a specific religious group.

Many people have different opinions. I am trying to understand the various opinions to see where any common ground may exist.

You don't have to participate in this thread if you don't want to. You have never shown any interest in actual discussion - it's about as far from your agenda as can be.

So, in the spirit of dialogue, I have stated my opinion that it is discrimination against Muslims.

And you state that:

I

I can see valid points on both sides of this issue. I don't think it's a clear case of "OMG RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE" or "OMG ALL MUSLIMS ARE KILLERS".

So your vicious personal attacks accusing me of intolerance or supporting discrimination are wholly unfounded. I realize you will never apologize for your tactics, but I will still point them out so that others are aware of your typical behavior.

If a person walked into a bank wearing a full ski mask and dark clothing on the rest of their body, bank security would rightly have cause to be alarmed. For safety and security reasons, it would be reasonable to require people to display their faces in the bank. Do you agree or disagree?

I stated that my opinion was based not just on my personal view, but also on the past history of the PQ and the PLQ in the province of Québec. And that past history of anti-religious feeling and Islamophobia in particular is relevant in determining motivation.

And I also spoke of a lack of any demonstrated compelling necessity.

And the law as written does not talk about specific situations, such as standing in a bank, or applying for personal identification, it simply forbids wearing a face covering while using any public services. So people could be refused entrance to a park, or to a public beach, or to public transportation, or to public schools, or hospitals.

If one walked into a bank wearing a ski mask and did not remove or pull up the mask, that could be suspicious.

and at any time, poses a threat because you have no way of knowing who's under the mask and what their intentions are. There are plenty of bad people in the world, in every religion, or with no religion. You love to hate on atheists, what if an atheist decided to rob a bank and threw on a burqa to do so?

But you have already agreed there are times and places where one should not conceal their identity. So this isn't a matter of "it's always wrong," it's a matter of "when is it OK?"

What if instead of just Islam, there were 2 or 3 other *common* religions in Quebec that also required obscuring one's face? If that were the case, would this law be OK because it isn't just "discriminating" against one particular religion?

We also need to be aware that many Muslim (and ex-Muslim) women view face coverings as a form of oppression. How do their opinions fit into this? If they express their opinion, are they being intolerant?

Nor is it legal in Canada, with the current exception of one province.

And the law targets face concealment in every instance where one is using public facilities such as a public beach, a public square, or riding on public transportation.

So under your premise, should all costumes that cover the face also be banned?

No winter carnival masks, no Guy Fawkes masks, no Trump masks, no Halloween masks, no motorcycle face shields, no surgical masks in public places also?

A mainly non-existent threat as cover for anti-Islamic hatred.

Try having your drivers license photo taken wearing one of them.

Clearly there are times and places where we do not allow covering of the face, obscuring one's appearance.

Now answer my other questions and quit with your nasty accusations and attacks.

And what of the disagreement in Canada by the Premiers of 2 other provinces? Is this supposed public safety problem only a problem in 1 province?

And another provincial party, the CAQ, feels that the law is not repressive enough.

Answer them, and I'll answer yours.

You have destroyed any bit of good will I may have had in interacting with you.

I understand that you will not answer the questions. I am simply pointing it out every time it occurs.

Anyone can scroll up the thread and see that I asked my questions first.

Why won't you answer them?

And those needs are never fulfilled. So you insist that the question has not been answered. A failed try at evasion.


You have failed to demonstrate that there is a compelling need for this law, you have failed to demonstrate any legitimate concern, and some government spokespeople have already stated that the law will not necessarily be enforced at all times, which totally undercuts the claims of the government.

One hopes that the Canadian Supreme Court will reject this law as the affront to the Charter that it is.

You are correct at one thing: yes, I failed at defending any of those straw men you just listed. Mainly because they're straw men and just another illustration of your usual tactics.

And refusing in this case because the government is undercutting their own stated reason for the ban. I ban that purports to be in the interest of public safety cannot be selectively enforced.

I've provided you with direct links.

You dismiss them, you insult me, you continue on your merry fucking way and never, EVER respond in kind with even the barest minimum attempt to back up your claims or answer direct questions.

As I have told you on dozens of occasions, I am perfectly content letting all who read these threads come to their own conclusions about who in our "discussions" has actually at least fucking TRIED.

many states have anti-mask laws.

From your link:

Ok you are being ridiculous.

This post refers to Québec, and on my most recent visit back home, Québec was still just east of Ontario, and directly west of NB, in Canada.

Let me know when we incorporated Canada into the United States.

You are being ridiculous.

this applies:

EOM.

And it is not illegal in the US to wear a face veil.

This link might help resolve your evident confusion:

https://www.aclu.org/other/discrimination-against-muslim-women-fact-sheet

Well, by the real definition of each of those words, questions and answers are different things.

Please do post that glossary soon.

Nor will they be.

This law is intolerance for a religion with no demonstrated compelling need for the law.

The original poster is, of course, free to provide a reason, or to respond to the question, but has chosen to not do so.

Feel free, if you wish, to advance your personal defense of this law.

With no compelling reason for the law, it can only be hatred of a specific group in a province with a demonstrated record of Islamophobic intolerance.

Who here supports this type of hatred?

Who here would argue in support of intolerance?

Or is intolerance acceptable if it is directed against members of a religion?

I don't see it as hatred of religion or support of intollerance.

There is no place in an open society to accept something that deinies another person their human rights. That's why there are bans against FGM as well.

It's a complicated issue, and I don't think either extreme ("no one should ever cover their face!" vs "this is religious bigotry OMGWTFBBQ!" ) quite has a grasp on the factors involved.

1) Anti-Muslim bias, and

2) Intolerance for a religion.

Do some liberals feel that intolerance is a good thing if it is directed against Muslims?

Next?

And I will continue to wait.

Now that's rich.

You have absolutely NO RIGHT to demand ANYTHING from me.

I will never play your games again. You have destroyed any shred of credibility you had left.

In some people's opinion, that is all.

You have already agreed that a person doesn't have the right to go around everywhere in a ski mask, so even you agree some limits are necessary. Oh yeah, how did you put it again?

"institutions have the right to enforce certain rules"



You make this so damn easy, g.

You alleged that I said this:

That's what the point of discussing the topic is.

You, on the other hand, just want to shout down anyone with a different opinion than yours.

You don't get to dictate the discussion here.

You refuse to acknowledge that you even said them, you have some reconciliation to do here before continuing.

Or are you agreeing with Trotsky's misreading of what I said in #13?

you mean "quoted words" then yes. Making sure we're talking about the same thing, with all the loose definitions flying around.

As has been pointed out to you, several times.

This act is tiring.

What is tiring is when I state that I can only define Christianity for myself, and one of the non-theists who frequent the religion group exclaims that I am attempting to define Christianity for others.

It's like I never said anything at all.

Trudeau responded by saying he would “continue to work to make sure Canadians are protected by the charter (federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms) while at the same time respecting the choices made by various parliamentarians at different levels.”
“But here, at the federal level, we defend the rights of all Canadians.”
Trudeau later tweeted a link to a speech he gave in 2015 condemning face-covering bans, adding that his position hasn’t changed.
“It is a cruel joke to claim you are liberating people from oppression by dictating in law what they can and cannot wear,” he said in the speech.

Exactly. Intolerance thinly disguised.

He is entitled to his opinion as well.

I understand.

Thanks for your concern!

Is this discrimination?

Hiding your face isn't a Islamic religious rule, it's a bullshit islamic law forced on women.
Ever see those pictures of women in Pakistan in the 70s when they were all dressed like western women? Then all of a sudden.. BOOM.. now you have to cover your face. If it wasn't a religious rule back then, it isn't now, nobody rewrote the koran.

and that yours is the only correct one.

I certainly will if I get the chance.
I also didn't say only my interpretation is correct. Stop making shit up. He is wrong about Islam and he's just too scared to be seen as islamophobic to admit it.

I would certainly like to ask him, and you I guess, what changed in Pakistan and Afghanistan that made the women have to be completely concealed when in the past it wasn't a requirement. Religious fundy muslims got control and that's how the treat women.
Can you find a better explanation?

If they want to say it's their religious belief. Show it.
Show where it says you have to be covered from head to toe in public. It doesn't say that. Therefore how can you claim it as a religious belief? You can't. So tough shit.

Do you remember the exodus of Anglophones after Law 101 was passed? I do. As a Francophone,and growing up bilingual, Law 101 was not a problem for me or my family, but people that I knew left because they felt a certain hostility directed against Anglophone only families.

Do you remember when Marois, and the PQ, were falling in the polls and decided to pass a law directed against reliigon? If not, here is an excerpt, and a link:

What's the point here? Are You saying quebecers are and always have been bigots? Catholics were the worst ones. They wouldn't even count the Huguenots in the census.
I don't want to do a quebec history thing here. . That's not what this is about.
If it is their religious belief, show why it is their religious belief. How hard is that?
If they can't? Then take it off when required by law.
Nobody is stopping them from wearing anything.. just for certain things. It is not to drive muslims out of quebec.

And yes, I am well aware of how the Anglo government behaved. My paternal grandmother was Cri. She could not even receive an education in her first language.

But as I posted in my post on this, even PLQ government backers admit that the law will not be enforced in all cases, so any real need for the law is non-existent. Like Marois before, this is an attempt to rally voters.

Edited to add: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218257160

You should have to show your face if you have to be identified. The Marois idea was government workers and stuff as well. She messed up by making it only muslims were effected, I was against it because others could wear their stuff. Here it's also for services, so if you need to show ID for something, show your face. I wouldnt care if it was in private if you really wanted to argue it, but show your face. Religion or not, this is a society and you don't get special rights.

If it is a deeply held belief, show me.
At least pastafarians have something that says they have to wear the colander. Where does it say fully covered women in Islam? If it doesn't, then why they just saying it's their religion when it was just some people overseas going apeshit with power and making crap up.

The women took their veils off when they weren't required to wear them, and put them back on when the fundies ordered it. But according to folks like guillaumeb, we mustn't ever associate any kind of compulsion there. Clearly we must assume the women freely chose to remove their veils when the government was secular, and then put them back on when it became religious.

Only that they had to. When they had the choice, it seems they didn't wear them.
Since nothing in their holy texts commands them to be veiled and covered at all times, it shouldn't be used as a religious excuse. Some fundies took meaning that isn't there and enforced it under penalty of death.

If it about their religion, why don't the men were the humiliating garb? The men all wear normal clothing.

I support this law.
If you want services and you need to be identified, take off your mask. Religion or not.
I'd allow for it to he done in private if necessary, or requested and done by another woman, but if you need to prove your identity how the fuck else are you supposed to do that with your face hidden?

Here is a link to all of the exceptions:


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bill-62-examples-ministry-release-1.4369347

We see it every day.

Thus making discrimination legal and acceptable?

If that is your point, I do not understand how you reconcile it.

Having to do the same as everyone else is discrimination?
Based on what? Religious reasons that do not exist in religious texts I assume.

Some posts upthread said or implied that this new law is unique in North America. Actually, anti-mask laws are widespread in the US. Before I found the article below, I thought such laws were confined to the southern states.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/protests-masks-laws.html