Bill 62 (anti-face covering) becomes law

196 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2017-10-20 05:31

WWWTT

Pondering wrote:

pietro_bcc wrote:
Negative values codified in law hurt our identity and culture more than some pieces of cloth that some of our fellow Quebecers place religious and cultural value in.

When Quebecers, especially those outside of Montreal, find out a large percentage of Montrealers speak a different language at home that represents a threat to Quebec culture just like English signs were a threat. It was important to maintain an outwardly French face but not like a movie set. The goal was for Montreal to be French Canadian in culture as well as language. That people are speaking a different language at home means they are not culturally French Canadian. They just speak French.

I'm sure that somewhere the Transit system of Montreal has a POC working but I have never seen one drive a bus. I even had a transgender driver on the 55. The STM wants the public face of the transit system to be French Canadian. Same goes for the public face of licence bureaus and any other government service you can think of. Hydro Quebec as far as I can tell all visble are French Canadian born.

To many Quebecers the burka and niqab, even though most have never seen one, are a threat to Quebec culture the same way English was a threat even though most people outside of Montreal never met any English people unless they were tourists.

Quebecers are used to passing laws to maintain the French language and culture. This is no different than mandating that English on signs must be smaller than the French. The goal has always been to keep Montreal a French Canadian city culturally not just a city that outwardly operates in French. Montreal schools have large immigrant populations and parents want their children in a culturally French Canadian school so they leave Montreal. It's not that they mind a few immigrants. It's that in some schools immigrants are the majority in some classes or close to it. They want their kids raised in French Canadian culture not just in French.

It is inevitable that the immigrant population in Montreal will grow faster than the French Canadian population. Every time a poll is taken on language spoken at home the percentage of those not speaking French will grow. 16% will become 20%- and then 25%.

Everytime it increases anti-immigrant sentiment and racism will rise. They did not drive out the English only to turn Montreal over to immigrants and their children.

nationalism definition. The strong belief that the interests of a particular nation-state are of primary importance. Also, the belief that a people who share a common language, history, and culture should constitute an independent nation, free of foreign domination.

Quebec is a distinct society because its people share a common history and culture not just because they happen to speak French. That is what they believe is threatened. It used to be threatened by the English now it is threatened by immigration. Nationalism is so entrenched in Quebec I have no doubt that there will be growing unrest as Montreal becomes increasingly diverse.

Bill 62 was intended to pacify nationalists like saying "see, I will protect Quebec's culture". After decades of pumping up nationalism in Quebec it can't just be shoved back into a box.

This comment to me sounds logical. People driven by fear.

Fri, 2017-10-20 06:22

#103

lagatta4

Pondering, Québécois, francophone Québécois to be precise. "French Canadian"? Are you living in 1950?

That is borderline offensive.

Odd, you don't live far from me and I've seen lots of "people of colour" driving buses around here. One can be a person of colour and French-speaking - I've seen many people of Haitian and Maghrebi origins driving buses, and actually South Asians who probably spoke English before French, but who speak fluent French. Speaking French is a qualification for the job.

This is borne out by the statistics; the STM is among the agencies who have most improved the numbers of women and of visible minorities among their staff.

There are more equity problems remaining in the civil service in the narrow sense.

I also don't see how anyone can see women taking their husband's name as anything from a relic of an age when women had no rights or identity. If not, an equal number of men would take their wife's name, in heterosexual marriages.

Edited to add - Bouchard and Taylor weigh in on this "dog's breakfast" of a law:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-bill-62-bouchard-taylor-1....

Fri, 2017-10-20 07:13

(Reply to #103) #104

pookie

WWWTT wrote:

pookie wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Reading about the political fallout, I actually do agree with Trudeau that the federal government has no business challenging the law. Though is it a standard practice for the federal government to launch court cases against provincial laws? Serious question, because I really don't know how these things work.

If it's generally not the thing for feds to challenge provincial laws in court, then I guess Trudeau is just stating the obvious. But if it is something they'd rouinely do, and given the Liberals' own expressed views on these sorts of issues, I suppose he could be accused of compromising his principles for political gain. (And yes, I realize that's no big shocker.)

The feds wouldn't have standing to challenge a provincial law on Charter grounds - only private parties can do that. They could challenge the law on division of powers, but it's clearly within Quebec's legislative authority to pass this.

The feds could, however, refer the validity of the law to the Supreme Court for its opinion. I highly doubt they'll do that.

you have a link to back up your opinion?

No.

Fri, 2017-10-20 07:14

(Reply to #104) #105

pookie

voice of the damned wrote:

Pookie:

Thanks for the rundown. I'm assuming that if the feds submit something to the SCOC for an opinion, it's non-binding?

I agree with Smith that it would probably just aggravate the situation for Trudeau to be the one dragging the issue to court, even if it was just to get their random thoughts on the matter.

Technically, advisory opinions don't engage the remedial powers of the Court. So, yes, they are not binding. In the real world, though, it would be regarded as binding. It becomes part of precedent, and lower courts would treat it as such. If the SCC were to issue such an opinion, someone could immediately go to the lower court and make an application for a declaration that the law is invalid. No court would refuse.

More likely, the minute the opinion was released, Quebec itself would either change the law, or seek to invoke the override.

Fri, 2017-10-20 06:55

(Reply to #105) #106

cco

lagatta4 wrote:

I also don't see how anyone can see women taking their husband's name as anything from a relic of an age when women had no rights or identity. If not, an equal number of men would take their wife's name, in heterosexual marriages.

I've explained this before, but since I brought it up, I suppose I might as well explain it again so the thread doesn't get too sidetracked. I didn't ask my wife to change her name; she wanted to, not to be "my appendage", but to disassociate herself from her violent and abusive family. We discovered that the "regular name change process", in Québec, is in practice only available to people named Hitler. Courts and bureaucrats set up a catch-22 of wanting government-provided evidence (driver's license, etc.) that you've used the new name for years before granting the change.

This isn't a source of deep-seated lingering resentment for me, and other than an occasional raised eyebrow at a border crossing, it hasn't presented any practical difficulties. I bring it up only as a comparison to the niqab issue, to illustrate that Québec has decided that a woman's individual right to choose her name should be restricted in order to defend women in general from being pressured to do so. To my eyes, the comparison (religious tradition, misogyny, societal pressure, government intervention) is fairly clear.

Fri, 2017-10-20 07:47

#107

lagatta4

Yes, I said upthread that name changes in Québec are expensive and difficult. I think making them much easier would solve that problem in specific cases such as your wife's (this could apply equally to a single person, and to a man as much as to a woman), without in general viewing married women as their husband's belonging.

Fri, 2017-10-20 10:10

#108

WWWTT

@lagatta4

France at one time did have an extensive colonial empire and France is on of the former barbaric imperialists. Lots of blood on their hands!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_India

Fri, 2017-10-20 10:23

#109

lagatta4

I don't understand; when on earth did I ever deny that? Though of course the UK was the leading colonial power in South Asia. France was mostly a coloniser in Africa and Southeast Asia - "French Indochina". And earlier, in the Americas, from Québec to Louisiana and the smaller but more lucrative colonies in the Antilles.

I don't see the relationship between your latest post and anything I've written in this thread. We weren't talking about France, but about Québec.

Fri, 2017-10-20 10:35

(Reply to #109) #110

6079_Smith_W

pookie wrote:

Technically, advisory opinions don't engage the remedial powers of the Court. So, yes, they are not binding. In the real world, though, it would be regarded as binding. It becomes part of precedent, and lower courts would treat it as such. If the SCC were to issue such an opinion, someone could immediately go to the lower court and make an application for a declaration that the law is invalid. No court would refuse.

More likely, the minute the opinion was released, Quebec itself would either change the law, or seek to invoke the override.

I figured I was just agreeing with you about federal intervention being a bad idea. I assumed that was your meaning, and there is plenty of past evidence that, especially as a violation of Quebec sovereignty, it would be a terrible idea.

A bit of a turnaround, but some years ago (2011?) Saskatchewan asked the court of appeal for a ruling on whether it could pass a law allowing justices of the peace to opt out from marrying gay couples, after a commissioner was found guilty in a human rights complaint.

Not only did the court turn them down, in the ruling they called out the government for being dishonest in trying to find a way to violate human rights on a technicality, not unlike this current law in Quebec. If I can find the ruling I will post it.

Fri, 2017-10-20 10:52

#111

lagatta4

IANAL (I'm not a lawyer) but I suspect that this law is not in conformity with Québec's own human rights charter.

Fri, 2017-10-20 11:24

(Reply to #111) #112

pookie

lagatta4 wrote:

IANAL (I'm not a lawyer) but I suspect that this law is not in conformity with Québec's own human rights charter.

IAAL, and you are IMO quite correct.

Fri, 2017-10-20 11:26

(Reply to #112) #113

pookie

6079_Smith_W wrote:

pookie wrote:

Technically, advisory opinions don't engage the remedial powers of the Court. So, yes, they are not binding. In the real world, though, it would be regarded as binding. It becomes part of precedent, and lower courts would treat it as such. If the SCC were to issue such an opinion, someone could immediately go to the lower court and make an application for a declaration that the law is invalid. No court would refuse.

More likely, the minute the opinion was released, Quebec itself would either change the law, or seek to invoke the override.

I figured I was just agreeing with you about federal intervention being a bad idea. I assumed that was your meaning, and there is plenty of past evidence that, especially as a violation of Quebec sovereignty, it would be a terrible idea.

A bit of a turnaround, but some years ago (2011?) Saskatchewan asked the court of appeal for a ruling on whether it could pass a law allowing justices of the peace to opt out from marrying gay couples, after a commissioner was found guilty in a human rights complaint.

Not only did the court turn them down, in the ruling they called out the government for being dishonest in trying to find a way to violate human rights on a technicality, not unlike this current law in Quebec. If I can find the ruling I will post it.

It's a bad idea politically. Legally, I'm agnostic. Though I'm usually cautious about "pre-emptive" references, this law is so problematic on its face it is arguably a reasonable candidate for a direct SCC reference.

Fri, 2017-10-20 11:42

#114

lagatta4

Yes, I thought it was. I knew you were a lawyer. I'm not, but I've done a lot of paralegal work at my tenants' association, mostly about rental code issues, but also issues of discrimination.

Fri, 2017-10-20 11:54

#115

6079_Smith_W

Ah. Gotcha. Yes, I was thinking in political terms, and figured that was your meaning.

And here's that sask ruling.

https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skca/doc/2011/2011skca3/2011skca3.html

Fri, 2017-10-20 12:02

(Reply to #115) #116

Pondering

lagatta4 wrote:

Pondering, Québécois, francophone Québécois to be precise. "French Canadian"? Are you living in 1950?

That is borderline offensive.

No I just live in the world with people who are not all activists and don't worry about such trimmings all the time. My question is what to do about people who speak other languages. Dutchophone? Mandarinophone? Why not dump them all in with allophone. Why do Quebecois need a way to refer collectively to the "other"? I'm good with just saying French, English, Dutch, Chinese. French Canadian is not an insult to French people who choose to stay a part of Canada and they seem to be the majority.

lagatta4 wrote:
Odd, you don't live far from me and I've seen lots of "people of colour" driving buses around here. One can be a person of colour and French-speaking - I've seen many people of Haitian and Maghrebi origins driving buses, and actually South Asians who probably spoke English before French, but who speak fluent French. Speaking French is a qualification for the job.

Then I guess I haven't been taking the bus often enough. I take the 55 and the metro once a week and I've never seen a minority ticket taker either. Maybe I am insufficiently observant. I will try to pay more attention over the next few weeks.

lagatta4 wrote:
This is borne out by the statistics; the STM is among the agencies who have most improved the numbers of women and of visible minorities among their staff.

Not all staff are "public face" and minimal English should also be a requirement given that the grand majority of tourists are English and Montreal wants them. We shouldn't have bus drivers telling off English people even if they aren't tourists though I know that's rare.

lagatta4 wrote:

There are more equity problems remaining in the civil service in the narrow sense.

Really, just narrow ones? So the English community is proportionally represented because I'm pretty sure that's not true. I am of course speaking of bilingual English speakers.

lagatta4 wrote:
I also don't see how anyone can see women taking their husband's name as anything from a relic of an age when women had no rights or identity. If not, an equal number of men would take their wife's name, in heterosexual marriages.

Many just want to share the same last name as their children and most children within a couple are given the man's last name by tradition. They don't see it as a political statement they see it as a convenience. Traditionally that means taking the man's name and many women don't have a problem with it even if you consider it a relic.

Women of Quebec lost the right to choose their husband's name at the time of marriage not because it was sexist but because administratively it's cheaper and easier for the government.

The motivation behind Bill 62 has nothing to do with safety and security nor is it to protect Quebecois culture. It is for Couillard to appeal to the nationalist vote. As a federalist he has to prove he's on their side. It doesn't even matter if the law is shot down. He will still have tried and it isn't a big enough issue to increase the desire for an independent country.

Fri, 2017-10-20 12:15

#117

lagatta4

This is an activist site, and FC is borderline offensive. Not like the N-word, but like older people who still say "coloured people" or "Negroes" in 2017. Or "Indians" (in reference to Indigenous people, not people from India). You aren't an ignorant person, and have no excuse for using such an antiquated term. Not all Federalists like that term either. And there should be no glory in being a "non-activist" on a site such as rabble. We all have ignorant or reactionary relatives, neighbours or co-workers. That is no excuse for repeating their offensive language.

I strongly disagree with you about the motivation for using a woman's birthname throughout her life. It is among many changes won by the women's movement here.

Name changing should be easier and cheaper, but it should bear no relation whatsoever to marital status.

Tradition enshrines the oppression of women. Sort of feminism 101, no?

By the way, I thought it was clear that I don't support this law, and neither does Québec solidaire.

Fri, 2017-10-20 12:42

#118

josh

older people who still say "coloured people"

I thought that was back in. as in, people of . . . . Which I refuse to use because I remember when the former term was frowned upon.

Fri, 2017-10-20 12:47

(Reply to #118) #119

WWWTT

lagatta4 wrote:

I don't understand; when on earth did I ever deny that? Though of course the UK was the leading colonial power in South Asia. France was mostly a coloniser in Africa and Southeast Asia - "French Indochina". And earlier, in the Americas, from Québec to Louisiana and the smaller but more lucrative colonies in the Antilles.

I don't see the relationship between your latest post and anything I've written in this thread. We weren't talking about France, but about Québec.

Sorry sister I am being a bad poster and am contributing to thread drift, but in a way not, so in my mind I'm still justified in making that comment.

France did maintain colonies enforcing imperialism on the Indian sub continent right up to the 1950's I am sure that there are probably tens of thousands of Indian people from these colonized areas who are visibly south Asian and whom speak French very fluent and French may very well be their mother tounge. You were under the impression(or it seemed to me) that if you were south Asian, you spoke English first and/or French was not your mother tongue.

I know we are discussing Quebec, but I believ it's safe to say that Quebec has drawn much of it's culture from an Imperialist country. Just as the rest of Canada from England/British empire (imperialist country).

It's also in my opinion that bill 62 has imperialist culture roots.

Fri, 2017-10-20 12:49

#120

lagatta4

This protest was predictable: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-bill-62-religious-law-1.43... Surgical masks, goalie masks, mufflers...

I think people of colour had a broader meaning - skdadl used to speak of people of pallor...

Fri, 2017-10-20 12:54

(Reply to #120) #121

josh

lagatta4 wrote:

This protest was predictable: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-bill-62-religious-law-1.43... Surgical masks, goalie masks, mufflers...

I think people of colour had a broader meaning - skdadl used to speak of people of pallor...

I can't use it regardless. It was so ingrained in me growing up that that was a verboten term, that I cringe every time I see or hear it.

Fri, 2017-10-20 13:15

#122

WWWTT

Here's another question I'm going to throw out here.

Why is this law required?

Are there a whole bunch of people in Quebec refusing to identify themeselves creating chaos? Or in the rest of the country for that matter? How were institutions dealing with this alleged problem before? Is it really a problem? It's odd that I have not heard of of any issues/problems being created or have given rise to eminating from someone wearing a veil or garb. All I hear is the hypothetical arguments of what MAY happen.

This bill 62 is a load of fuckin garbage really. Sounds like a buch of yahoos that want to pursecute minorities and make them guilty by association, forcing them to prove their not guilty!

Thanks for the leadership role Justin Trudeau! Coward!

Fri, 2017-10-20 13:45

#123

josh

https://twitter.com/CBC_Hayward/status/921354814369316864

Fri, 2017-10-20 17:02

#124

lagatta4

Thanks, josh! Also scroll down his tweets a bit and you'll see plenty of cars and trucks making illegal u-turns at the spot where a young élite cyclist was killed a couple of weeks ago, despite the fact that no-u-turn is clearly marked.

The law was only "required" out of political calculation.

On the other hand, I do think we have to advance more to secularism, but secularism involves the state, not individuals. Defunding private schools would go a long way. So would removing "God" from any fundamental laws.

Radio-Canada is also reporting on the bus drivers honking and gesturing in support of the mask and muffler demonstrators.

Fri, 2017-10-20 18:16

(Reply to #124) #125

Ken Burch

alan smithee wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Holy fuck...no offense but you have a thick head. When I'm talking about public service I'm talking about Medicare,driver's license,passports,if you work a government job and have to identify yourself when working with the public,receiving social services,stuff like that.

I'm certainly not talking about riding a bus or a metro which is vaguely a public service unlike getting a medicare card and having to identify yourself on anything that requires a photo ID.

Then what did you mean when you said "What I am in full agreement with is a law requiring people to be identifyable when receiving or giving public services.".

Are buses not public services now? Sorry if I misunderstood, but I think public transit is definitely a public service, Alan. Do you feel otherwise?

Quote:
Am I making myself clear or am I going to have to explain things to you with pictures,graphs anf hand puppets?

No need for pictures, graphs or hand puppets. Just tell us what you think is a public service.

And maybe you could tell us why you have fears about someone you can't "identify" on the bus. What do you mean by that?

OK.. And hopefully this is the last time I have to explain myself.

I haven't seen any women in a burqa here. At least not around my area. But I've seen the niqab.

Personally I don't like either. But I'm not going to go too much further than that.

There is this man who uses the same bus I use almost everyday. He wears a towel on his head,kept in place with a baseball cap,he wears a hankerchief over his face and big dark glasses. He's unidentifyable. And I admit,the first couple of times,especially the first time I saw him,he made me very nervous. Who is this person? Why is he hiding? What is he up to? Reasonable questions imo.

The first time I saw some women wearing the niqab on the bus,in the back of my mind I couldn't help but wonder who they are. Again,a human thing. Sorry I don't pass your progressive purity test. On the other hand I shouldn't give a fuck.

If someone wants to use public transit they can. It's vaguely a public service. It's very expensive. $83 a month or $3.25 a shot..that's not much of a 'public' service.Every other public service I have ever used cost me one big donut,nothing,not a penny. My medicare costs nothing besides having to pay for a picture (something that never existed until it was discovered certain people were using them fraudulently),my hospital visits,my regular appointments,my doctor,costs nothing. My CT scans and MRI's,my recent colonoscopy cost me nothing,I have insurance for the dentist,the cost? zero.

But that's neither here or there...For the last fucking time,read this carefully ok,I'll tell you as slowly and as simply as possible because you don't fucking get it.

I agree (are you with me so far?) that one must identify themselves (clear so far?) when applying for a social service,a court appearance, a medicare card,a driver's license,a passport or anything else that requires a photo ID. I also agree (now pay attention) that if you work for the government,especially when you're dealing with the public,providing services, those people have a right to see who they are talking to hence,you must uncover your face while performing such work.

Now I'm done explaining myself over and over and over to you and your thick head. If you don't get it this time,then tough,I'm not explaining it again.

As to women in burqa or niqab identifying themselves, the woman in the citizenship ceremony offered a solution to that, which can easily be implemented in any government office: simply have the woman in burqa go into a private room and reveal her face to a female official. Given that there are only tiny number of women in niqab, and given that they, as a group, are collectively harmless-no woman in a burqa or niqab has ever been involved in a terrorist incident and the 9/11 hijackers were clean-shaven men in Western clothes who showed ID and passed through airport security-why not just go with that? Why is it so important to you to force these women to show their faces in public? I don't like the idea of niqab or burqa myself-but why single them out for fear when they not only aren't the problem, but when singling them out may actually allow any men who are oppressing them-this law could be used by ultrafundamentalist Muslim men to bar their wives or daughters or sisters from ever leaving the house-to oppress them further?

Bill 62 is a heavy-handed, Western-supremacist solution to a non-problem. Women with their faces covered are just women with their faces covered. They aren't here to kill you, Alan-and I doubt they even care that you exist.

Relax already.

Fri, 2017-10-20 18:19

#126

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
simply have the woman in burqa go into a private room and reveal her face to a female official.

Are female officials the better ones, like white male doctors?

Fri, 2017-10-20 18:41

(Reply to #126) #127

Ken Burch

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
simply have the woman in burqa go into a private room and reveal her face to a female official.

Are female officials the better ones, like white male doctors?

Of course not. But they are the ones that women in niqab feel they CAN show their faces to in private, so why not just go with that? No harm would be done and everyone walk away feeling they'd been treated respectfully.

Fri, 2017-10-20 18:54

#128

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Of course not. But they are the ones that women in niqab feel they CAN show their faces to in private, so why not just go with that?

For the same reason we wouldn't go with the white male doctor. Please, let's not open that door.

Fri, 2017-10-20 19:02

#129

6079_Smith_W

I think the door is already open, and standard policy.

If someone has to be subjected to a body search it is already the norm that it would be done by someone of the same sex. Similarly, having a woman officer to show someone's face to, if that is even necessary, is a reasonable request.

It isn't the same as asking for a white doctor. It is a question of modesty.

Fri, 2017-10-20 19:29

#130

cco

Should citizens be allowed to specify the religion of public servants they're willing to interact with, or only the gender?

Fri, 2017-10-20 19:31

#131

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I think the door is already open, and standard policy.

It might be swinging, but I don't know that it's standard policy. Wasn't there a (successful) lawsuit in the U.S. a few years back in which female sports journalists were given the same right to do "post game" interviews in a team's locker room, where players were walking around in various states of undress?

I seem to recall the important point being that everyone should be allowed to be a sports journalist, not just men. Modesty took a back seat to that.

I know it's easy enough to say "well, if they only want to deal with a CBSA agent of their own sex, why is that a problem?" but as soon as one perfectly capable employee gets sent on "a break" so that someone else, of a different sex or colour or whatever can step up and do the job in your place, I think that's a problem.

You think I've never had a female doctor see my wiener? When I last had surgery, lots of people saw my wiener, and I didn't get to (or need to) choose who. These aren't casual social interactions.

Fri, 2017-10-20 21:16

#132

6079_Smith_W

Well it isn't a journalist's job to look in someone's pants. Not the same thing.

It isn't an absolute rule, but it is a part of many policies. Searches at airports require two agents of the same sex as the person being searched. Many police departments require that, whenever possible, a body search be done by someone of the same sex.

Given that a forced search by a man in this case would be just as much a violation of freedom of religion as forcing a woman to remove her niqab in public, it isn't an unreasonable or illegal request at all to expect a woman to do the search. Quite the opposite; it is the prevention of a rights violation.

Sat, 2017-10-21 17:29

(Reply to #132) #133

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Holy fuck...no offense but you have a thick head. When I'm talking about public service I'm talking about Medicare,driver's license,passports,if you work a government job and have to identify yourself when working with the public,receiving social services,stuff like that.

I'm certainly not talking about riding a bus or a metro which is vaguely a public service unlike getting a medicare card and having to identify yourself on anything that requires a photo ID.

Then what did you mean when you said "What I am in full agreement with is a law requiring people to be identifyable when receiving or giving public services.".

Are buses not public services now? Sorry if I misunderstood, but I think public transit is definitely a public service, Alan. Do you feel otherwise?

Quote:
Am I making myself clear or am I going to have to explain things to you with pictures,graphs anf hand puppets?

No need for pictures, graphs or hand puppets. Just tell us what you think is a public service.

And maybe you could tell us why you have fears about someone you can't "identify" on the bus. What do you mean by that?

OK.. And hopefully this is the last time I have to explain myself.

I haven't seen any women in a burqa here. At least not around my area. But I've seen the niqab.

Personally I don't like either. But I'm not going to go too much further than that.

There is this man who uses the same bus I use almost everyday. He wears a towel on his head,kept in place with a baseball cap,he wears a hankerchief over his face and big dark glasses. He's unidentifyable. And I admit,the first couple of times,especially the first time I saw him,he made me very nervous. Who is this person? Why is he hiding? What is he up to? Reasonable questions imo.

The first time I saw some women wearing the niqab on the bus,in the back of my mind I couldn't help but wonder who they are. Again,a human thing. Sorry I don't pass your progressive purity test. On the other hand I shouldn't give a fuck.

If someone wants to use public transit they can. It's vaguely a public service. It's very expensive. $83 a month or $3.25 a shot..that's not much of a 'public' service.Every other public service I have ever used cost me one big donut,nothing,not a penny. My medicare costs nothing besides having to pay for a picture (something that never existed until it was discovered certain people were using them fraudulently),my hospital visits,my regular appointments,my doctor,costs nothing. My CT scans and MRI's,my recent colonoscopy cost me nothing,I have insurance for the dentist,the cost? zero.

But that's neither here or there...For the last fucking time,read this carefully ok,I'll tell you as slowly and as simply as possible because you don't fucking get it.

I agree (are you with me so far?) that one must identify themselves (clear so far?) when applying for a social service,a court appearance, a medicare card,a driver's license,a passport or anything else that requires a photo ID. I also agree (now pay attention) that if you work for the government,especially when you're dealing with the public,providing services, those people have a right to see who they are talking to hence,you must uncover your face while performing such work.

Now I'm done explaining myself over and over and over to you and your thick head. If you don't get it this time,then tough,I'm not explaining it again.

As to women in burqa or niqab identifying themselves, the woman in the citizenship ceremony offered a solution to that, which can easily be implemented in any government office: simply have the woman in burqa go into a private room and reveal her face to a female official. Given that there are only tiny number of women in niqab, and given that they, as a group, are collectively harmless-no woman in a burqa or niqab has ever been involved in a terrorist incident and the 9/11 hijackers were clean-shaven men in Western clothes who showed ID and passed through airport security-why not just go with that? Why is it so important to you to force these women to show their faces in public? I don't like the idea of niqab or burqa myself-but why single them out for fear when they not only aren't the problem, but when singling them out may actually allow any men who are oppressing them-this law could be used by ultrafundamentalist Muslim men to bar their wives or daughters or sisters from ever leaving the house-to oppress them further?

Bill 62 is a heavy-handed, Western-supremacist solution to a non-problem. Women with their faces covered are just women with their faces covered. They aren't here to kill you, Alan-and I doubt they even care that you exist.

Relax already.

Very well.

But make no mistake,I believe the same of EVERYONE. Be it a niqab,a scarf,a mask,a handkerchief or anything else that obscures the face and can't be identified.

I'm sorry the narrative leaned too much in the direction of religion.

Sat, 2017-10-21 18:22

(Reply to #133) #134

progressive17 progressive17's picture

alan smithee wrote:

There is this man who uses the same bus I use almost everyday. He wears a towel on his head,kept in place with a baseball cap,he wears a hankerchief over his face and big dark glasses. He's unidentifyable. And I admit,the first couple of times,especially the first time I saw him,he made me very nervous. Who is this person? Why is he hiding? What is he up to? Reasonable questions imo.

The first time I saw some women wearing the niqab on the bus,in the back of my mind I couldn't help but wonder who they are. Again,a human thing. Sorry I don't pass your progressive purity test. On the other hand I shouldn't give a fuck.

Why don't you try minding your own fucking business instead of obsessing about other people? They certainly would not care about you!

Sat, 2017-10-21 19:02

(Reply to #134) #135

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

There is this man who uses the same bus I use almost everyday. He wears a towel on his head,kept in place with a baseball cap,he wears a hankerchief over his face and big dark glasses. He's unidentifyable. And I admit,the first couple of times,especially the first time I saw him,he made me very nervous. Who is this person? Why is he hiding? What is he up to? Reasonable questions imo.

The first time I saw some women wearing the niqab on the bus,in the back of my mind I couldn't help but wonder who they are. Again,a human thing. Sorry I don't pass your progressive purity test. On the other hand I shouldn't give a fuck.

Why don't you try minding your own fucking business instead of obsessing about other people? They certainly would not care about you!

why don't you go fuck yourself?,instigator.

You had how long to react to that comment? Instead you read a comment I made in a running converstaion with someone I've actually talked to more than a handful of times,unlike you who saw the last comment in the thread and decided to troll my previous posts and now somehow want to prove you've got something superior in your pants.

Newsflash,you don't. You're a punk.

Sat, 2017-10-21 19:17

(Reply to #135) #136

progressive17 progressive17's picture

alan smithee wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

There is this man who uses the same bus I use almost everyday. He wears a towel on his head,kept in place with a baseball cap,he wears a hankerchief over his face and big dark glasses. He's unidentifyable. And I admit,the first couple of times,especially the first time I saw him,he made me very nervous. Who is this person? Why is he hiding? What is he up to? Reasonable questions imo.

The first time I saw some women wearing the niqab on the bus,in the back of my mind I couldn't help but wonder who they are. Again,a human thing. Sorry I don't pass your progressive purity test. On the other hand I shouldn't give a fuck.

Why don't you try minding your own fucking business instead of obsessing about other people? They certainly would not care about you!

why don't you go fuck yourself?,instigator.

You had how long to react to that comment? Instead you read a comment I made in a running converstaion with someone I've actually talked to more than a handful of times,unlike you who saw the last comment in the thread and decided to troll my previous posts and now somehow want to prove you've got something superior in your pants.

Newsflash,you don't. You're a punk.

Did your parents have any children who lived?

Sat, 2017-10-21 19:40

(Reply to #136) #137

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

There is this man who uses the same bus I use almost everyday. He wears a towel on his head,kept in place with a baseball cap,he wears a hankerchief over his face and big dark glasses. He's unidentifyable. And I admit,the first couple of times,especially the first time I saw him,he made me very nervous. Who is this person? Why is he hiding? What is he up to? Reasonable questions imo.

The first time I saw some women wearing the niqab on the bus,in the back of my mind I couldn't help but wonder who they are. Again,a human thing. Sorry I don't pass your progressive purity test. On the other hand I shouldn't give a fuck.

Why don't you try minding your own fucking business instead of obsessing about other people? They certainly would not care about you!

why don't you go fuck yourself?,instigator.

You had how long to react to that comment? Instead you read a comment I made in a running converstaion with someone I've actually talked to more than a handful of times,unlike you who saw the last comment in the thread and decided to troll my previous posts and now somehow want to prove you've got something superior in your pants.

Newsflash,you don't. You're a punk.

Did your parents have any children who lived?

Lol...'e' for effort 'f' for fail. Don't come to a gun fight armed with a spoon,boy..Or go right ahead. You're a failed internet troll whose best ran down his father's leg.You're lame.

Sat, 2017-10-21 20:23

(Reply to #137) #138

progressive17 progressive17's picture

alan smithee wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

There is this man who uses the same bus I use almost everyday. He wears a towel on his head,kept in place with a baseball cap,he wears a hankerchief over his face and big dark glasses. He's unidentifyable. And I admit,the first couple of times,especially the first time I saw him,he made me very nervous. Who is this person? Why is he hiding? What is he up to? Reasonable questions imo.

The first time I saw some women wearing the niqab on the bus,in the back of my mind I couldn't help but wonder who they are. Again,a human thing. Sorry I don't pass your progressive purity test. On the other hand I shouldn't give a fuck.

Why don't you try minding your own fucking business instead of obsessing about other people? They certainly would not care about you!

why don't you go fuck yourself?,instigator.

You had how long to react to that comment? Instead you read a comment I made in a running converstaion with someone I've actually talked to more than a handful of times,unlike you who saw the last comment in the thread and decided to troll my previous posts and now somehow want to prove you've got something superior in your pants.

Newsflash,you don't. You're a punk.

Did your parents have any children who lived?

Lol...'e' for effort 'f' for fail. Don't come to a gun fight armed with a spoon,boy..Or go right ahead. You're a failed internet troll whose best ran down his father's leg.You're lame.

You're good at dishing it out. Shame you can't take it.

Sat, 2017-10-21 23:15

(Reply to #138) #139

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

There is this man who uses the same bus I use almost everyday. He wears a towel on his head,kept in place with a baseball cap,he wears a hankerchief over his face and big dark glasses. He's unidentifyable. And I admit,the first couple of times,especially the first time I saw him,he made me very nervous. Who is this person? Why is he hiding? What is he up to? Reasonable questions imo.

The first time I saw some women wearing the niqab on the bus,in the back of my mind I couldn't help but wonder who they are. Again,a human thing. Sorry I don't pass your progressive purity test. On the other hand I shouldn't give a fuck.

Why don't you try minding your own fucking business instead of obsessing about other people? They certainly would not care about you!

why don't you go fuck yourself?,instigator.

You had how long to react to that comment? Instead you read a comment I made in a running converstaion with someone I've actually talked to more than a handful of times,unlike you who saw the last comment in the thread and decided to troll my previous posts and now somehow want to prove you've got something superior in your pants.

Newsflash,you don't. You're a punk.

Did your parents have any children who lived?

Lol...'e' for effort 'f' for fail. Don't come to a gun fight armed with a spoon,boy..Or go right ahead. You're a failed internet troll whose best ran down his father's leg.You're lame.

You're good at dishing it out. Shame you can't take it.

Show me where I didn't take it.I seem to be taking it just fine. You're the tiny pissant who's whining. You also started this. So suck a fart out my asshole.

Sun, 2017-10-22 02:49

(Reply to #139) #140

progressive17 progressive17's picture

alan smithee wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

There is this man who uses the same bus I use almost everyday. He wears a towel on his head,kept in place with a baseball cap,he wears a hankerchief over his face and big dark glasses. He's unidentifyable. And I admit,the first couple of times,especially the first time I saw him,he made me very nervous. Who is this person? Why is he hiding? What is he up to? Reasonable questions imo.

The first time I saw some women wearing the niqab on the bus,in the back of my mind I couldn't help but wonder who they are. Again,a human thing. Sorry I don't pass your progressive purity test. On the other hand I shouldn't give a fuck.

Why don't you try minding your own fucking business instead of obsessing about other people? They certainly would not care about you!

why don't you go fuck yourself?,instigator.

You had how long to react to that comment? Instead you read a comment I made in a running converstaion with someone I've actually talked to more than a handful of times,unlike you who saw the last comment in the thread and decided to troll my previous posts and now somehow want to prove you've got something superior in your pants.

Newsflash,you don't. You're a punk.

Did your parents have any children who lived?

Lol...'e' for effort 'f' for fail. Don't come to a gun fight armed with a spoon,boy..Or go right ahead. You're a failed internet troll whose best ran down his father's leg.You're lame.

You're good at dishing it out. Shame you can't take it.

Show me where I didn't take it.I seem to be taking it just fine. You're the tiny pissant who's whining. You also started this. So suck a fart out my asshole.

You don't take it by having fear for the way that people appear. You don't take it by insisting who has the right to respond to what you say, and when they have the right to say it. This is a public forum, and when you post something, anyone else has the right to challenge what you say whenever they want to do so. You have no control over that. Live with it.

You don't take it by insisting that your society should be "secular" when that is just as bad as insisting it should be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Wicca, Buddhist, or whatever. If society wants to be secular, it will evolve to be that way without your help or the help of opportunistic politicians in the ASS-HAT ASS-NAT. Whatever a person believes is their own business. If that set of beliefs requires them to dress in a certain way, it is not my business to tell them to do otherwise. There could be other reasons a person may want to cover their face. They may not want to be recognized because they have been in trouble before. They may have a disfigurement which they do not want to be seen in public. Please allow them their dignity, and mind your own business. Our society is strong because it is PLURALISTIC not SECULAR.

When it is suggested that you mind your own business when you are out on the street (or on the Metro), you react with obscenities, which are tired and unoriginal. I have heard much worse from much better.

I am not going to say what you are (apart from another human being), because it is very clear from what you say. I am still going to suggest that when you are out on the street, you mind your own business and keep to yourself. Worry about what you do, not what others do.

If you want to continue to vent and spew out more obscenities, please be my guest. Flail away with a wet noodle. However so far as I am concerned, the matter is now closed.

Sun, 2017-10-22 03:10

(Reply to #140) #141

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

There is this man who uses the same bus I use almost everyday. He wears a towel on his head,kept in place with a baseball cap,he wears a hankerchief over his face and big dark glasses. He's unidentifyable. And I admit,the first couple of times,especially the first time I saw him,he made me very nervous. Who is this person? Why is he hiding? What is he up to? Reasonable questions imo.

The first time I saw some women wearing the niqab on the bus,in the back of my mind I couldn't help but wonder who they are. Again,a human thing. Sorry I don't pass your progressive purity test. On the other hand I shouldn't give a fuck.

Why don't you try minding your own fucking business instead of obsessing about other people? They certainly would not care about you!

why don't you go fuck yourself?,instigator.

You had how long to react to that comment? Instead you read a comment I made in a running converstaion with someone I've actually talked to more than a handful of times,unlike you who saw the last comment in the thread and decided to troll my previous posts and now somehow want to prove you've got something superior in your pants.

Newsflash,you don't. You're a punk.

Did your parents have any children who lived?

Lol...'e' for effort 'f' for fail. Don't come to a gun fight armed with a spoon,boy..Or go right ahead. You're a failed internet troll whose best ran down his father's leg.You're lame.

You're good at dishing it out. Shame you can't take it.

Show me where I didn't take it.I seem to be taking it just fine. You're the tiny pissant who's whining. You also started this. So suck a fart out my asshole.

You don't take it by having fear for the way that people appear. You don't take it by insisting who has the right to respond to what you say, and when they have the right to say it. This is a public forum, and when you post something, anyone else has the right to challenge what you say whenever they want to do so. You have no control over that. Live with it.

You don't take it by insisting that your society should be "secular" when that is just as bad as insisting it should be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Wicca, Buddhist, or whatever. If society wants to be secular, it will evolve to be that way without your help or the help of opportunistic politicians in the ASS-HAT ASS-NAT. Whatever a person believes is their own business. If that set of beliefs requires them to dress in a certain way, it is not my business to tell them to do otherwise. There could be other reasons a person may want to cover their face. They may not want to be recognized because they have been in trouble before. They may have a disfigurement which they do not want to be seen in public. Please allow them their dignity, and mind your own business. Our society is strong because it is PLURALISTIC not SECULAR.

When it is suggested that you mind your own business when you are out on the street (or on the Metro), you react with obscenities, which are tired and unoriginal. I have heard much worse from much better.

I am not going to say what you are (apart from another human being), because it is very clear from what you say. I am still going to suggest that when you are out on the street, you mind your own business and keep to yourself. Worry about what you do, not what others do.

If you want to continue to vent and spew out more obscenities, please be my guest. Flail away with a wet noodle. However so far as I am concerned, the matter is now closed.

You have a right to say what you like,but if you tell someone to 'mind their own fucking business' is going to instigate a profane response . Live with it.

We also live in a secular state. I suggest you keep flailing around like a wet noodle. So move on now,Chuckie. The matter has been closed as soon as you trolled my past posts to try to assert your manhood. Which is clearly lacking significantly.

Sun, 2017-10-22 03:15

#142

Ken Burch

For the love of Gaia, Marx and conscience, will you guys both please STOP? Enough already.

Sun, 2017-10-22 03:42

#143

Pogo

Can people take a second and delete the old comments when they reply, just leave the last one. Unless your goal is to make the thread unreadable, then please go ahead.

Sun, 2017-10-22 05:31

#144

NDPP

Canadian Province of Quebec Adopts Law Refusing Govt Services To Muslim Women

https://www.newcoldwar.org/canadian-province-of-quebec-adopts-law-refusi...

"I have never seen a more flagrantly unconstitutional law,' Montreal human-rights lawyer Julian Grey said in an interview. 'The law scandalizes me. The possibility that somebody could be refused services at a hospital or be thrown off a bus is scandalous..."

Sun, 2017-10-22 06:06

(Reply to #144) #145

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I think the door is already open, and standard policy.

It might be swinging, but I don't know that it's standard policy. Wasn't there a (successful) lawsuit in the U.S. a few years back in which female sports journalists were given the same right to do "post game" interviews in a team's locker room, where players were walking around in various states of undress?

I seem to recall the important point being that everyone should be allowed to be a sports journalist, not just men. Modesty took a back seat to that.

I know it's easy enough to say "well, if they only want to deal with a CBSA agent of their own sex, why is that a problem?" but as soon as one perfectly capable employee gets sent on "a break" so that someone else, of a different sex or colour or whatever can step up and do the job in your place, I think that's a problem.

You think I've never had a female doctor see my wiener? When I last had surgery, lots of people saw my wiener, and I didn't get to (or need to) choose who. These aren't casual social interactions.

To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, a wiener is just a wiener...

Sun, 2017-10-22 06:17

#146

lagatta4

Secularism is an important progressive principle. And it does NOT involve telling people how to dress.

I have a friend who was a trade unionist and Solidarnosc activist in Poland. He fled to France after the pro-Soviet gang took power, but did NOT return to Poland after so-called democracy returned under the heavy hand of a Church as reactionary as those seen in Québec, Ireland or Spain.

It seems odd to have to defend basic principles of progressive thought when I don't think anyone here was supporting Law 62.

Sun, 2017-10-22 08:16

(Reply to #146) #147

cco

progressive17 wrote:

Whatever a person believes is their own business.

Wouldn't that be nice? Everybody could just believe what they want to believe, in private, and it'd stop there. Society would get along just fine. We could call it "secular", or something. A couple of problems: Many of those beliefs explicitly deny that what other people believe is their own business. In fact, they make it very clear that believers need to get everyone else to believe the same thing. Also, for some reason, a lot of them have decided that they're too good to follow the law like heathens, and requested that the law "accomodate" the things they believe, whether that means the right to refuse service to women, the right to prevent their children from being educated, or even criminalizing criticism of their religion. Canada has decided that that's just fine for the religious, even though it's a privilege that doesn't extend to any non-supernatural set of beliefs.

N.B.: This post is not about the niqab.

Sun, 2017-10-22 09:32

#148

6079_Smith_W

Well, there are some political and personal values that get that kind of special treatment as well, so it is ultimately more about dominant culture and privilege, but very good point.

Sun, 2017-10-22 10:18

#149

cco

Which ones? Serious question. Do Tory voters get to pay lower taxes because they deeply believe those taxes should be low?

Sun, 2017-10-22 10:35

#150

6079_Smith_W

There are all kinds of examples of double standards, assumption that people are above the law, and that their values trump everyone else's. The gun lobby, big oil, capitalism, and all kinds of special treatment that men, straights, and white people get.

Again, I think your point is an excellent one, but I don't think it is fundamentally a religious issue. After all, a lot of those arguing against people's freedom to dress as they wish are anti-religious, but they have a big blind spot about their own culture. The prejudices (in this thread, and in the law) make it pretty clear that it is more about a dominant group pushing their norm, and being threatened by others.

Sun, 2017-10-22 11:11

#151

lagatta4

I'm not sure there is such a blind spot among activists. Work with Indigenous activists has done a lot to counter that. And remember that there were titanic struggles about Church domination in decades many still remember. Sure, many holidays still follow religious calendars, but those in turn often follow natural occurrences such as the solstice and equinox.

I don't think that kind of approach is the best way to counter systemic discrimination, which is a very serious issue.

Bill 62 (anti-face covering) becomes law

Pages