Who are Muslim women?
March 16, 2010 · By Charles Anthony
As much as I have a hard time siding with Quebec statesmen, I have to wonder what masked muslims are thinking. It is just silly for them to expect to live in a cosmopolitan community while simultaneously wearing a mask.
Yes but its all about them forcing their life style on us.
How does it impact you or I at all? How does some random Muslim woman wearing a nikab or a burka harm anyone else? As far as I can tell, it’s simple fear of ‘the other’. I can’t find another rational explanation.
Abat,
The trouble is that we are amid a state apparatus that seems to fall apart if people can misrepresent their identity. That is what is at issue here.
I am not going to apologize for the state, mind you. I just think these muslims are a little wacko if they expect nobody to object while simultaneously asking for state privileges which depend on their identification.
Masks are an apparatus of clothing,crooks, robbers,killers,hold-up people,male cowards pretending to be women ,shady characters with only trouble in mind & klu klux clan members wear.That”s the way it is in a free country,we don,t hide behind masks like cowards and were not going to start .You don,t like it,get the hell out of Canada..And don’t say it is part of your religion,that is just BS.Now take the mask off and give us a smile.
I was just in St. Pauls Hospital today and saw three black burka clad people. the first I have ever seen in Vancouver. When all you can see is a persons eyes, I get very uncomfortable.
Thank you Trudeau for this abomination and subjugation of women.
Where are all the womens freedom advocates these days?
@BERT: pants also fit that description. Off with the pants! But seriously, being in a free country should mean we are all free, including those who want to wear a hijab. What you are propsing, ironically, runs counter to personal freedoms.
@Capndan: sorry, but your discomfort is no reason to deny someone else the freedom to wear a hijab.
@Charles: that’s not what I got from the link at all. I’ll have to go back and read it again.
Hijab – yes, Burka – No.
Identification of an individual is important to me. I have no issue with someone hiding their hair. Masking a person’s entire identity is something else altogether.
“.That”s the way it is in a free country.”
Exactly. In a free country, we should be telling people what they’re not allowed to wear.
I’ve little difficulty with women subjugating themselves to Islam. It’s a silly choice, but theirs to make.
The line must be drawn, however, when that custom does not mesh with established laws and procedures, such as putting a clear full-face picture on a driver’s license or health card. The strictures of Islam must give way to these things.
Well, I do not even think people should be forced to have driver’s licenses anyway but in our current state of affairs, we are pretty much obligated to do so. Thus, it is just completely absurd for Muslims to think they can be treated as individuals when they do not present themselves as individuals. It is just as absurd as pretending we live in a free country.
@Mark
Let’s put aside the driver’s license thing (mainly because I’m inclined to agree with you). I cannot agree that women (or men, for that matter) who, as a matter of religious principle, cover their face should be forced to be shed their religious garment for the purposes of a health card photo.
We’ve decided, as a nation (and yes, Charles, I know that’s not a great formulation), to install a system of socialized health care and ban robust private care – and the means to pay for such care. Our decision to impose this on everyone should not then empower us to trample freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
Yes, allowing people to cover their faces for health card photos could lead to some fraud, but that is the nation’s fault, not the individual’s. We shouldn’t use people’s lack of freedom in regards to health care as a club to further batter our remaining freedoms.
@Jonathan
What an absurd argument. Linking public health care to approaches to public identification is nonsense. Countries, such as the USA, require people to show their faces on government issued identification, and they have a so-called “robust” private health care system. It must be those darn shared road systems that are getting in the way of our freedoms.
@Ryan
Could you expand a bit on your objection? I didn’t link health care to public identification; it’s an offshoot of this whole debate.
U.S. private health care providers/insurers are welcome to do whatever they like, as far as I’m concerned. The standards imposed on private actors need not be the same as those imposed on government actors.
(I should also note that my objection to forcing people to abandon their religious beliefs in order to get a government issued health card do not mean that I advocate doing away with any or all public health insurance – I think the system needs to be changed, but not necessarily scrapped completely.)
@Jonathan
” I cannot agree that women (or men, for that matter) who, as a matter of religious principle, cover their face should be forced to be shed their religious garment for the purposes of a health card photo.”
“Our decision to impose this on everyone should not then empower us to trample freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”
“We shouldn’t use people’s lack of freedom in regards to health care as a club to further batter our remaining freedoms.”
Hmmm. Well, then I’m not sure what you are trying to say then.
We have a public health care system. Some provinces (not all) issue photo identification health cards, which is required to access care. Canadians can’t buy care from a marketplace in Canada (for most types of care at least). You state that private care is robust (where is this robust private care?)
You seem to be saying that if the “state” allowed people to buy private health care in the marketplace then the religious objections related to photo IDs could be avoided, because people could choose to get their health care from a provider that does not require photo identification.
Now, you could have said that folks with these religious views could move to Alberta, a province that does not have photo health ID cards, or, you could have called for flexibility from jurisdictions that require photo health IDs because access to health care is a right in our country and religious expression should not be an impediment to health care. You kind of came close to the latter point, but you essentially characterized photo ID health cards that are required by certain provinces (e.g. Ontario) as a “club” that batters our remaining freedoms. I think that is an absurd argument.
As you mentioned earlier, the U.S. has a robust private system. I’m not sure why we need to discuss where a private system exists, considering we both agree that Canada has a public system.
First, though I could suggest people move to Alberta to protect their liberty, I could also suggest that other places do more to protect liberty. Generally, I choose the latter.
Otherwise, yes, you are, essentially, correct: “health care is a right in our country and religious expression should not be an impediment to health care.” (Deeming health care a “right” is problematic, but useful for our discussion.) It seems to me that the natural extension of this idea is that it is wrong for the administration of public health care to violate religious freedom.
If we can agree on that sentiment, it seems we are just getting into a debate about rhetorical style rather than substance.
I disagree, Jon. It is the masking of the face which poses an impediment to the administration of services to individuals.
We are not talking about lining people up to give them innoculations, lice checks or dental exams. In those instances, personal identity does not really matter until after the service is provided. Nobody is going to run to the back of the line to get a second helping.
We are talking about administering individualized care.