A violation of the Canadian constitution.
Violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Violation of the Convention against Racism, Xenophobia and whatever else is in the title
Basically being Muslim is being the new black guy.
Racism in the West never died. It just went hibernated for less than a decade.
Re: Racism in the west again…
:smack: AlJazeera had to get that liberal a$$ kissing Tarek Fatah on the video..!
Today it’s the niqab and tomorrow it will be the hijab. There was a protest on Saturday, just the first of many. insha’Allah the Muslim community will not stay silent on this issue. In Spain a girl was kicked out from class for wearing the hijab, yes in SPAIN. And this bill in quebec is just a disguise, they might say just banning niqab in government buildings but tomorrow it will be everywhere. Another example was an Indian student who was forced out of class and she wasn’t demanding anything! For those who still say it’s not a war against Islam, you better the coffee and wake up!!!
[Link Removed by Lusi]
The issue has been discussed before, but I’m really glad you pointed out the fact that a government proposing a ban on the niqab is a violation of the Canadian constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I find that objections or criticisms of distinctive Muslim practices cause a knee-jerk reaction that the opposition or criticism by the government or wider society is a racist or xenophobic act. And while I’m not disputing that racism may at times motivate certain actions, I think there needs to be a more balanced discussion.
No need for me to go into detail about the concept that each of us (at least those living in democratic societies) has the constitutionally guaranteed right to freely practice our religion without fear of discrimination or retribution. So then automatically, any interference by the government in an act that is required or observed for religious reasons would be considered a violation of that right.
We as Muslims look to the West’s increasing negation of a Muslim woman’s right to wear the niqab, but the conversation needs to be broadened. Before alleging racism and xenophobia, we need to ask and answer the following questions:
Does the government have a right to interfere in an individual’s right to freely practice their religion, and if the answer is yes, then when and in what circumstances is such interference permissible?
My own personal answer to the first question, lies in the following article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30763438/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/
To summarize the article, Roman Catholic parents refused chemotherapy treatment for their son with Hodgkin’s disease because of their religious beliefs. The state intervened and the court ordered that the son be treated by chemotherapy (which has a 90% chance of saving his life).
There are additional examples of state intervention, but the other one that comes to mind is FLDS and its practice of polygamy and forced marriages involving underage children. Again, in this instance, the state challenged a practice that people belonging to a religious group justified though the tenets of their faith.
The principle behind the right or ability of the government to intervene or restrict an individual’s personal rights (including religious freedom) comes from the premise that at times there is a public interest or greater good that is in conflict with an individual’s personal rights, and that the public interest trumps or personal freedoms. So the next question is who determines public interest and how far reaching is the government’s right to impose limitations on religious rights? The answer to the first question is that the government reflects the mores and values of the majority of society. So if the majority’s opinion is that there is harm from the actions of an individual or an identifiable group, the rights of the individual will be superseded by the public interest.
The last point to be made is that there is validity to the argument that state intervention in religious rights presents a slippery slope. Once you accede to state intervention, how or when do you limit that intervention – in what circumstances is okay and at what point has it gone too far?
So going back to the examples I cited, in both instances, I agree with the state’s right and responsibility to intervene because my beliefs and values differed from those of the Roman Catholic parents and the FLDS church elders. But who am I to impose my will and beliefs on these people? My opposition to the religious practices will conceivably make me a racist to these specific groups because of my disagreement of their practices and support of state intervention - and the label of racist is a heavy burden to bear.
So, getting back to the right to wear niqab and governments legislating against such a right scenario, while I myself don’t see potential harm to the public, I acknowledge that there are others in the larger society who looking at the issue though their own frame of reference do argue that the wearing of the niqab is against public interest. They can put together compelling arguments to support their perspective and I’m wary about labeling them racist or xenophobic because their views are different than mine.
Okay, 'nuff said!
Re: Racism in the west again....
^ There is no comparison of Niqab and not allowing to give chemotherapy to a minor by parent(s).
Big difference.
P.S. While Hijab may be islamic, Niqab is not
The comparison is the interference of the state in an individual's religious practice. In both instances, the state is making a judgement about what is acceptable.
As I indicated in my comments, I don't believe that wearing of the niqab harms or is against the public interest. But that is my belief.
The people promoting a ban on the niqab can point to examples where it is reasonable to deny a woman the right to wear the niqab:
1) Identifying an individual is necessary to ensure the integrity of democratic processes - how do you confirm the identity of a voter if she is wearing niqab?
2) There was a real example in Ontario where an accused cited to his right to face his accuser in a trial (there is actually no constitutional right, rather it is a long-standing convention).
Going back to my earlier question: who is the arbiter of what represents the public interest? The answer to that question will eventually decide what is or not an acceptable interference of an individual's religious rights.
The comparison is the interference of the state in an individual's religious practice. In both instances, the state is making a judgement about what is acceptable.
As I indicated in my comments, I don't believe that wearing of the niqab harms or is against the public interest. But that is my belief.
The people promoting a ban on the niqab can point to examples where it is reasonable to deny a woman the right to wear the niqab:
1) Identifying an individual is necessary to ensure the integrity of democratic processes - how do you confirm the identity of a voter if she is wearing niqab?
2) There was a real example in Ontario where an accused cited to his right to face his accuser in a trial (there is actually no constitutional right, rather it is a long-standing convention).
Going back to my earlier question: who is the arbiter of what represents the public interest? The answer to that question will eventually decide what is or not an acceptable interference of an individual's religious rights.
OK. I did get your view earlier even then two scenarios do not match. And I know you clarified too.
The issue with state interfering in to matter like a child's health has two facets:
1- There is obvious physical health of child involves and state has strong belief or reason that by interfering the child will have chance of good health or longevity.
2- The child himself/herself is incapable of making decision or consent to treatment or no treatment options.
None of this applies to niqab or hijab.
Like I mentioned, Niqab is not islamic. No real basis for it at least I have found yet.
Hijab is to do with freedom of personal belief and choice. It should be left to the person if observe or not. It should not be considered as threatening to anyone.
Someday, someone will use same analogy and say, anyone wearing a particular hairdo, article of clothing or color or perfume (make up any other example here) is offensive to me, it should be banned! :)
Niqab takes away someone elses's right to identify other person in making any deal. So can be let go. Especially if there is no strong basis for it.
Re: Racism in the west again....
There is no sane niqabi that will protest when asked to identify herself. The Quebecois are a racist bunch, I know this because I live here.
Fine, let's say niqab has no place in religion(though there is strong difference of opinion), I'll accept your view but that does not give the government the right to take away the woman's freedom. By saying niqab "can be let go", you're supporting the government. Little by little 'freedom' is taken away. What difference will remain between the Taliban and western government? None except Taliban are on Haq whereas the west is boasting about its evil system known as democracy.
PS: If you want to know what the Quebecois are like then look at the American rednecks in the south. No difference except for language.
In both the cases of expulsion, the basis for the problem they mentioned with the niqab was that it got in the way of teaching the language. The second case proved that this reasoning was utter BS, since the girl was one of the best students in the class.
She didn't even ask for any kind of special treatment. There was no complaint from the school about her. The ministry just interfered out of nowhere. For sure it's nothing other than discrimination/racism.
Re: Racism in the west again....
From a legal point of view the government of Quebec is violating the basic freedoms of the individual and is found not to comply with the Universal declaration of Human Rights. There are no ifs and buts about it.
The Canadian constitution and the UDHR does not provide clauses or caveats. Rather what it does is state unconditionally that you can not violate someone's religious freedoms. I don't care what bull**** people come up with the reality is there.
You are violating a persons individual freedoms akin to Saudi Arabia.
From a legal point of view the government of Quebec is violating the basic freedoms of the individual and is found not to comply with the Universal declaration of Human Rights. There are no ifs and buts about it.
The Canadian constitution and the UDHR does not provide clauses or caveats. Rather what it does is state unconditionally that you can not violate someone's religious freedoms. I don't care what bull**** people come up with the reality is there.
You are violating a persons individual freedoms akin to Saudi Arabia.
"No man is an island unto himself."
Any personal liberty or right can or will be checked in a democratic civil society. It is part of entering into the "social contract" that forms the basis of modern democratic society. We give up the "natural rights" we enjoy in a state of nature in order to enjoy the social order or peace of a civil society. Even those rights that are promised to us under a constitution have limits placed upon them in order to ensure the viability of a civil society.
I have the right to privacy (Art. 12 of UDHR), but for the state's ability to subject me to random searches at airports, now including scans at airports.
I have the right to freedom of speech (Art. 19 of UDHR), but for the state's right to prosecute me for uttering hate speech against identifiable groups.
An individual's rights are not absolute - there are caveats that you cannot deny, which while not written into the respective constitutions have been recognized by the courts of the land.
As I've said twice before - the issue is who and how the "caveats" are determined. We see that is the elected legislators that supposedly represent the society, who pass into law these caveats or specific articles of legislation. The matter will then be referred to the courts for a final determination of whether the interference by the state and its legislators is reasonable.
I've not said anything that others aren't already aware of - the posters on GS are a bright group of people. I cannot speak for others, but I personally support the state's violation of an indvidual's religious freedoms in certain circumstances and I refer to the examples I cited before. I'll go out on a limb and venture to say there may be good many others on GS who support the state's violation in those circumstances. But this then leads to the slippery slope argument. Once state interference is deemed acceptable, how far is state interference permitted?
Re: Racism in the west again....
Absolutely not. The social contract does not apply to universal freedoms. If this is the social contract one has to enter into, then racism and slavery should be acceptable. Or the actions of Saudi Arabia, Iran or even Taliban Afghanistan are perfectly acceptable.
By your argument the Taliban were legally and morally right to behead women for actions they did not deem acceptable because they were the government at the time. Regardless of what the UDHR stated. Because the state has the right to limit the freedoms of individuals to ensure the viability of the society.
We're talking at cross purposes.
Your earlier comment is that certain rights such as religious freedom are inalienable and/or inviolable.
From a legal point of view the government of Quebec is violating the basic freedoms of the individual and is found not to comply with the Universal declaration of Human Rights. There are no ifs and buts about it.
The Canadian constitution and the UDHR does not provide clauses or caveats. Rather what it does is state unconditionally that you can not violate someone's religious freedoms. I don't care what bull**** people come up with the reality is there.
You are violating a persons individual freedoms akin to Saudi Arabia.
I disagree.
I am a Muslim and therefore I personally agree with the requirements of the Muslim faith (niqab being a debatable requirement). But, if tomorrow, someone were to create some sort of havey-cavey new age religion that spawned morally dubious actions that impacted others - I would as a member of society feel it incumbent upon myself to curb those religious freedoms.
If I can limit the religious freedoms of others or support state interference or violation of those rights, it is no surprise that others may challenge my own religious freedoms. I agree that there is no reasonable purpose being served by ordering a ban on the niqab. But I am willing to have a conversation about it and to defend my right to wear it if I so choose and not tar the West as racist or xenophobic.
Re: Racism in the west again....
apart from the religious angle, freedom, etc, I personally think the whole niqab thing is extraordinarily retarded.
regardless of my personal opinion on the niqab, if you look at the background of the ban, it makes perfect sense. if the govt is providing a service and requires you to take off your niqab, you should comply. for example, that idiotic woman who would start shouting at any male students who dared to sit in the same area... refused to make presentations with her niqab-covered face towards the class and instead faced the blackboard. now, making presentations with your ass in the faces of your classmates is probably a lot more un-Islamic than the alternative. or maybe I'm just a sicko (won't deny that either).
anyway, freedom, etc, aside, niqab should be banned as should be the Sikh "ceremonial" dagger (doesn't seem very ceremonial any more after a couple of incidents in Brampton) and all other such retarded quasi-religious practices. this applies even more so in Pakistan where the security situation demands that people identify themselves clearly to the police/security forces. we cannot afford to allow any more beardos to sneak into places in burqas and then blow themselves up.
apart from the religious angle, freedom, etc, I personally think the whole niqab thing is extraordinarily retarded.
regardless of my personal opinion on the niqab, if you look at the background of the ban, it makes perfect sense. if the govt is providing a service and requires you to take off your niqab, you should comply. for example, that idiotic woman who would start shouting at any male students who dared to sit in the same area... refused to make presentations with her niqab-covered face towards the class and instead faced the blackboard. now, making presentations with your ass in the faces of your classmates is probably a lot more un-Islamic than the alternative. or maybe** I'm just a sicko** (won't deny that either).
anyway, freedom, etc, aside, niqab should be banned as should be the Sikh "ceremonial" dagger (doesn't seem very ceremonial any more after a couple of incidents in Brampton) and all other such retarded quasi-religious practices. this applies even more so in Pakistan where the security situation demands that people identify themselves clearly to the police/security forces. we cannot afford to allow any more beardos to sneak into places in burqas and then blow themselves up.
yup you said it right, you are a sicko and an ignoramus.
aww... I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a personal attack. I'm so sad and teary now. :-(
anyway, sicko or not, better to pine for a woman than a man's behind like you and your taliban pals do.
btw, do you also wear a burqa when you post on GS and bash the infidels whose country you live in and whose hospitality you abuse?
We're talking at cross purposes.
Your earlier comment is that certain rights such as religious freedom are inalienable and/or inviolable.
I disagree.
I am a Muslim and therefore I personally agree with the requirements of the Muslim faith (niqab being a debatable requirement). But, if tomorrow, someone were to create some sort of havey-cavey new age religion that spawned morally dubious actions that impacted others - I would as a member of society feel it incumbent upon myself to curb those religious freedoms.
If I can limit the religious freedoms of others or support state interference or violation of those rights, it is no surprise that others may challenge my own religious freedoms. I agree that there is no reasonable purpose being served by ordering a ban on the niqab. But I am willing to have a conversation about it and to defend my right to wear it if I so choose and not tar the West as racist or xenophobic.
The argument made originally was that a social contract is made with the government that allows the government to limit ones freedoms. Something I disagree with in concept and reality. There are certain rights that are inalienable. You have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of thought, religion, sexual orientation and the rest. These are basic fundamental rights nobody and no government has the right to take away from you.
To quote the Americans, "You have the right to life, liberty and prosperity."
The basic rights enshrined in the UDHR can not be limited by any government. If they do so, then you head down the way of the Taliban or Saudi Arabia who have violated these fundamental rights on a regular basis.
Additionally your two examples do not correlate. Your caveat of a "avey-cavey new age religion that spawned morally **dubious actions that impacted others]/b] - I would as a member of society feel it incumbent upon myself to curb those religious freedoms."
That is a caveat that is not in place with the Niqab example. There are no dubious actions that impact others when you wear a Niqab.
Re: Racism in the west again....
i think now all the muslims should leave the canada ... who is first?
The argument made originally was that a social contract is made with the government that allows the government to limit ones freedoms. Something I disagree with in concept and reality. There are certain rights that are inalienable. You have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of thought, religion, sexual orientation and the rest. These are basic fundamental rights nobody and no government has the right to take away from you.
I accept you've a different perspective, so we can agree to disagree. It's not my life's aim to get others to agree to my perspective, rather, being heard is enough. I have an opinion, there is a platform for an open discussion, I've made use of it and shared my perspective/opinions. That's good enough for me.
The Indian in you is starting to come out. Acha hai aur karo 
The truth is; everybody is racist, whether you are South Asia, arab or a Gora. Somepeople express it openly and some people dont. Any one who says I'm not a racist is a big fat liar.