October 20, 2009 12:08 pm at 12:08 pm #590625
A Canadian Muslim group is advocating banning burkas.Quote:
A Canadian Muslim group is calling on Ottawa to ban the wearing of the burka in public, saying the argument that the right to wear it is protected by the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of religion is false.
“The burka has absolutely no place in Canada,” said Farzana Hassan, of the Muslim Canadian Congress. “In Canada we recognize the equality of men and women. We want to recognize gender equality as an absolute. The burka marginalizes women.”
How do you feel about this? Is this the Muslim equivalent of a self-hating group? Imagine if a Jewish group would advocate banning something not le-halachah that they feel is discriminatory to women. Or should this sort of move be supported? Or is it irrelevant and neither here nor there?October 20, 2009 1:30 pm at 1:30 pm #663188
I can only tryMember
This is an example of intolerance and small-mindedness at its worst.
Why, just as a practical matter they can warm you up on a chilly fall or cold winter day. What will these fanatics want to ban next? Down jackets? Hot chocolate?
Ban them? The nerve.
icotOctober 20, 2009 2:01 pm at 2:01 pm #663189
Thanks, ICOT, I needed that.
I’m ambivalent about banning burkas myself, leaning towards NOT banning.
I’ve seen some women in “levush” a step or two down and it’s actually quite attractive, and they show their full faces. Clearly seeing the face should be law, at least for licenses.October 20, 2009 3:42 pm at 3:42 pm #663190
Absolutely NOT ban them. If they ban burkas, they can ban tzitzis hanging out, or yarmulkes, or anything else they feel like banning. Not a good precedent to set.
And ICOT, that really was great.October 20, 2009 4:47 pm at 4:47 pm #663191
Well in Mexico it has been the law for a while that a nun cannot go into the street with a nun garment. You do not see too many nuns walking around their garment in the street, sometimes they do , but definitly is against the law. And this could work both ways in a way because Mexico is against religion in general that we have freedom to be jews. All public schools are not allow to teach any Sreligion. and well being a catholic country, who knows what is in their minds. So frum jews coming out on shabbos with their tallis over their heads is not a good idea.October 20, 2009 4:50 pm at 4:50 pm #663192
You might want to get into the habit of finding out the names of things. 🙂
The WolfOctober 20, 2009 5:05 pm at 5:05 pm #663193
If I recall, not too long ago in France they were considering banning yarmulka’s along with burkas (in schools).October 20, 2009 5:11 pm at 5:11 pm #663194
IIRC, it was all religious symbols.
The WolfOctober 20, 2009 5:24 pm at 5:24 pm #663195
WolfishMusings, I will like you to post in Spanish and see how well you can manage a second languague.October 20, 2009 5:31 pm at 5:31 pm #663196
It was a joke. A “nun garment” is called a habit — hence my choice of words.
The WolfOctober 20, 2009 5:54 pm at 5:54 pm #663197
Its terrible. If you can ban one religious symbol, you can ban them all.
Why not ban streimels? Wigs? Chai necklaces?
This is a VERY slippery slope.October 20, 2009 6:13 pm at 6:13 pm #663198
I don’t think anyone would say that a wig is a religious symbol. And even a streimel as a “religious symbol” is stretching the point a bit.
The WolfOctober 20, 2009 10:09 pm at 10:09 pm #663199
mybatMemberOctober 21, 2009 12:58 am at 12:58 am #663200
I can only tryMember
Seriously, as long as it’s not a security risk let ’em wear what they want.October 21, 2009 2:57 am at 2:57 am #663201
I was so amazed by seeing a woman in a bourka in Canada I thought it was a good turist attraction and I wanted to take a picture.October 21, 2009 4:34 pm at 4:34 pm #663202
One of the problems is that when action is taken against one group, let’s say because of a perceived issue with women’s rights, other groups also get caught in the net. Something similar happened in Ontario when there was legislation to remove Sharia law from the Arbitration Act and Batei Din ended up caught as collateral damage.
“Religious Muslims were predictably disappointed and vowed to fight on, while Jewish groups were angry over Premier Dalton McGuinty’s additional comments that not only would Sharia go unrecognized, but Ontario would, as soon as possible, rescind the authority, of any faith-based tribunals in settling family disputes allowed under the 1991 Arbitration Act. They face the outlawing of their decades-old rabbinical courts (beit din).”October 21, 2009 6:51 pm at 6:51 pm #663203
Don’t ban the garments, ban those who wear them 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.