Quebec (twice) refuses to teach French to woman because she wears a Niqab

This stupid system is so user-unfriendly....

Anyway, already being discussed here:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/central-canada/reasonable-accommodations-debate

Boy, they really are heroes, aren't they?  Go, Quebec government, go.  Don't want the evil Muslim threat of veiled women threatening your English classes, now!  Run 'em out!  Make 'em cry - that'll show them how wrong they are for wearing veils!  Refusing necessary services to Muslim women, humiliating them in front of their classes and making them run out crying will show them how progressive you are when it comes to women's rights.

A real champion of women, that Yolande James, and her immigration henchmen.

And heck, why stop there?  Why not force all women down to miniskirts and halter tops?  Or maybe bikinis?  The more skin women show, the more progressive and feminist they are, after all!  I mean, think about it.  How can a woman REALLY communicate if you can't see the strength she has in her bare arms and calves and thighs and shoulders?  Actors will tell you that a huge amount of non-verbal communication happens through the back and shoulders - strip 'em down!  I wanna see them, or I'm not really communicating with you!  Real women are proud of their bare skin and want to show it to everyone.  There's only one way to be feminist, after all!

Exceptions to the bare calves rule will, of course, be made for CFMB's*.  And skin-tight leggings.

*Come Fuck Me Boots

An interesting solidarity action (if it would be welcomed by Muslim women, of course) might be for women, Muslim or otherwise, who do not normally wear niqabs and who do not support this racist government action to don them in classes across the province.

Niqab refers to the full face covering only doesn't it

I particularly liked the article about how ableist the discourse has been around this, particularly the ridiculous excuse that you can't teach someone another language if you can't see their mouth.  Really?  So does this mean that visually-impaired people also can't teach language classes in the name of "equality" in Quebec?

Well, Michelle, I think there's a difference between someone's disability and someone's choice in how they dress.

For example, you have freedom of speech, don't you? How about if a store clerk tells a customer how they really feel about capitalist enterprises? Do we accommodate that?

How about if a store clerk really deeply sincerely wants to wear a tank top, bikini shorts, and bare feet to work? Wanna have a solidarity movement around that?

But if a store clerk becomes visually impaired (or is visually impaired before hire) - or if their religious beliefs prohibit them from working on Sunday or Saturday or Friday - there is a legal duty to make every reasonable effort to accommodate that person up to the point of undue hardship. Oh, by the way, it may happen that it's not possible to accommodate, in which case the clerk either makes a concession in terms of their beliefs (like almost every religious person I know has to do to survive in modern society), or they go work somewhere else. The visually impaired person may have to go work somewhere else too, even though they are unable to make concessions. It depends on the nature of the job.

I think that's where the balance should be struck.

Sorry if that sounds too white and western for you.

Quote:

How many times does it have to be said that gender equity is about giving women the right to make their own choices?

First, the word is [b]equality[/b], not equity. What happened to [i]equality[/i]? Is this just a typo?

Second, does anyone here agree that the struggle for equality for women is equal to giving women the right to make their own choices?

Do men have the "right to make their own choices" in this society?

What happened to the struggle to eliminate the wage gap? To eliminate job ghettoes? To value and share housework? To de-objectify women in our culture, our religions, our economy? To get women into politics and positions of power? To stop women's voices being scorned and drowned out in every cell of our society?

Abortion is indeed about women's "right to make their own choices". But when did this watchword become the sum total of what women's struggle for equality is (in the words of this author) "about"?

Women are equal when they can choose to wear bras and niqabs? This is some struggle worth having in this country in 2010? We're going to have a solidarity movement with women who want to cover their faces? How about foot-binding - that too?

Charest's xenophobic focus on face veils in Bill 94 has really struck home. No one likes veiled faces (surprised to hear that?) and almost no one wears them. So there will be little opposition from ordinary folk. The xenophobes and Islamophobes will be pleased as punch. And some progressives, who are confusing forests and trees, will go into impassioned battle for the "right" of people to "wear whatever they want wherever and any time they want". A worthy cause for civil libertarians - and grist to the mill of the racists, who were really disappointed when the whole "reasonable accommodation" scandal fizzled out and Mario Dumont and the ADQ were destroyed.

By the way, these articles, which show no clue of understanding of Québec, its history, and its present - which ascribe this whole phenomenon to "racism" - which can't even fathom why the discourse of gender equality is so powerful here - are less offensive than they are irrelevant.

I don't see many women wearing niqabs anywhere in the city but where I work several women wear veils and baboushka's(not sure that's the right word)  but they are not allowed to wear tank tops or short shorts or sweat pants, ect. So my understanding of this has been that clothing that is worn for religious reason is accepted( I don't think it would be against the dress code anyway). While the clothes that have no religious connection can be disallowed, so is this not a bit of discrimination against the non- religious.

I don't what exactly the true issue is but I don't think it's really so simple as Islamophobia - If she was wearing a veil her face wouldn't have been covered and nothing would have happened.

So let's think about the worst that would happen even if this whole bullshit excuse about the absolute necessity of seeing someone's mouth in order to learn language was true (which it's not, since this woman was considered by her teacher to be the best student in the class before she was chased out by the Quebec immigration crusaders). 

The worst that would happen if the niqab really did affect her learning is that this one woman might get slightly less out of the class than her classmates.  This isn't a class that is a dealbreaker here.  It's one where people learn the language better.

So, if you really think the niqab creates some kind of barrier - the only person affected is the woman herself.  So if she's willing to take on that risk, then who the fuck cares?

I mean, seriously.  The threat of maybe 20 women in the entire province wanting to go to the hospital or to language classes with a niqab on is some sort of national security issue?  It's some kind of huge threat to all the women of Quebec if a handful of women wearing niqabs somehow manage to get into a language class?  Perhaps the husbands of all women in Quebec will start forcing them to wear niqabs if the idea isn't nipped in the bud by vigilant white crusaders?  Is that it?

Michelle wrote:

I think that if we make all women strip to the point that white, western men and women feel comfortable, that this will create gender equality. 

In the interest of nit-picking: exposing one's face isn't a "western" value.  The vast majority of women in Asia don't wear niqabs, either.

Good points about the small minority of women this involves.  In my neighbourhood, during the last election in Toronto, there were a few niqabi women quietly, informally accommodated by showing their faces to women returning officers for ID purposes.  

Don't think we need laws for every tiny little thing, especially when it gets everybody's knickers in a twist.

That's true regarding face covering.  However, in France, you're not even allowed to wear head scarves in schools, and it's the same reasoning and motive behind that - because it's somehow "anti-feminist" or "anti-secular" to wear a scarf on your head, and it makes white western people feel uncomfortable.

Just how far should white western people expect their comfort levels to be accommodated?  First ban the niqab because they're uncomfortable with that - and then what?

Huh? My face confirms nothing about my ID, because there are no photos on my ID. I said that: no photo ID -- c'est moi. I just have official pieces of paper with my address on them. My face is irrelevant.

There's a difference between setting up religious legal systems and letting people wear what they want.

Heh.  How DO you get away with buying beer or liquor without showing your photo ID, skdadl?

I get asked for mine all the time because of my gorgeous, youthful good looks.  They tell me, "Gosh, you're 37?  You don't look a day over sixteen!"

Isn't that right, radiorahim? :D

Michelle wrote:

Heh.  How DO you get away with buying beer or liquor without showing your photo ID, skdadl?

I get asked for mine all the time because of my gorgeous, youthful good looks.  They tell me, "Gosh, you're 37?  You don't look a day over sixteen!"

Isn't that right, radiorahim? :D

Well, as you can imagine, Michelle, I get that all the time at the beer store and the clubs too. lol. VGE: I'm 64 yrs old. It has been a loooong time since anyone worried I was underage for anything. I don't drive, and they'll have to pry my old health card out of my cold calcifying fingers (although I have a feeling they're preparing to do that).

I should get a new passport, I guess. Is it true that you can't fly any more, even domestically, without photo ID? I haven't flown for a while, and would actually rather not, although it's hard to get to Scotland surface. I wish we had ferries -- Nfld --> Greenland --> Iceland --> Scotland -- most sensible.

I fly a lot these days, and yes, I'm pretty sure they want photo ID.  Intra-Canada, I usually use my driver's license, passport anywhere else.

ETA:  I'll take the plane -- I have a thing about water.  Cold water you can drown in, especially. 

Timebandit wrote:

I fly a lot these days, and yes, I'm pretty sure they want photo ID.  Intra-Canada, I usually use my driver's license, passport anywhere else.

ETA:  I'll take the plane -- I have a thing about water.  Cold water you can drown in, especially. 

True -- so many ways to die when travelling, and I don't really like any of them. And deep water makes me dizzy.

But no, it's the airports that I most dislike. I really suffer in airports. I don't do a Helena Guergis, mind, but I have been known to assume the fetal position.

But using Michelle's example of two people agreeing on something and signing their agreement, we ordinarily don't have the option of a do-over once we've agreed to something.  I'm not sure why this should be different.

I'm also not sure why you wrote "supposedly voluntary".  We seem to believe that a woman wearing a niqab is making an independent decision and doesn't need us to intervene.  Why do we think tribunals would be different, and require us to prevent a Muslim woman from doing something she claims to want to do?

Michelle wrote:

There's a difference between setting up religious legal systems and letting people wear what they want.

So that's where [i]you[/i] draw the line - where the white western judicial system is called into question?

By the way, I do not believe there is such a thing as a "human right" to "wear what they want" - for anyone.

And just so you know, Bill 94 (the product of cheap pandering to xenophobia) does [b]not[/b] force women to remove their niqab in publicly-run language class. Any woman who wants to invoke religious belief may ask to be accommodated. What Bill 94 does is to [b]deny[/b] that accommodation where the requirement for a bare face is justified on grounds of security, identification, or communication. That is a matter that a tribunal can hear and decide. So, if showing one's face is in fact not required for language instruction (as several here claim), then a niqabi will have the right to wear her niqab in language class. But first, they have to invoke their right to ask for accommodation, and stand their ground.

Yes, that's where I draw the line, Unionist.  No public funding or public establishment of religious institutions, but freedom for everyone to express themselves by whatever observances they feel the need to do through clothing, prayer, etc.

I suggest that Sharia law, harnessed and superceded by Canadian law woud have been much less dangerous to society and its members than Canon Law which seems to be a 'don't go there zone'. According to this article, Canon Law puts the 'reputation of the Church' before the criminal process.

-The Toronto Star, Sun Apr 11 2010

 Church's fear of scandal led to cover-ups

When crimes occur, Catholic canon law requires bishops to consider church's image, expert says

 ROME-The Catholic Church's worry about the scandal sex abuse allegations will cause - often leading to their cover-up - reflects a deeply rooted legal principle that governs the church, a leading canon law expert says. "The principal of scandal is very important in penal canon law," says Marco Ventura, a professor of religious law at the University of Siena, referring to the Vatican's legal code. "Preventing scandals from taking place is crucial from all points of view. The bishop is in charge of determining how to fight against scandals which could affect the good image of the church," he added in an interview. Avoiding scandal was a key concern of the late Bishop Joseph Windle, of Pembroke, Ont., when he wrote a letter to the Vatican about a pedophile priest in 1993.

http://tinyurl.com/y6xtzyo

Quote:

 Otherwise, I'm not opposed to culture-specific arbitration; I'm just saying that if someone involved in such comes to believe that she was treated differently in that system, and to her disadvantage, than she would have been by the civil courts, then she should have recourse to those courts if she changes her mind and decides she wants it.

I don't follow. If I dent my neighbour's car, and agree in writing to pay him $500 to fix that dent, I don't get to say later "Hey, I bet I could have got a better judgement going to court" and then get to nullify my original agreement and try again.

I had, I guess wrongly, thought that you were referring to judgements from a tribunal that could not have similarly been judgements from a Canadian court. As an (extreme) example, I cannot agree with my neighbour that in compensation for denting his car I'll cut off my pinky. No Canadian court would ever issue such a settlement, and no Canadian court would uphold our private contract in that regard either. And that's what I thought we were talking about when referring to "outside of Canadian law".

But a court wouldn't strike down my $500 agreement solely on the basis that I'd like to shop around for a better deal. A Canadian court could easily pass such a judgement and would therefore have no grounds to strike down such an agreement, if entered into voluntarily.

What you're endorsing is "judgement shopping".

There seems to be confusion in regards to terminology of alternate dispute resolution systems.  

An arbitrator is a third party chosen by two parties to a contract to resolve issues relating to the contract.  In labour law the rules for conducting that are in the various labour codes across the country. In commercial deals the Commercial Arbitration Act is used as the legal model.  An arbitrator is given the power to decide an issue and is not a mediator trying to find a consensus. The reason there are laws regarding arbitration is that due process is a tricky thing to get right and these are decisions of a third party.

Mediation on the other hand is two parties agreeing to meet with a third party who will help them reach a settlement that is acceptable to both parties.  If the parties sign a mediation agreement then it becomes a contract like any other and is enforceable in the courts.  Mediation is available in the courts in BC for small claims actions and family law matters. Mediation is legal for any dispute because the decisions are still made by the parties involved and the mediator is facilitating not deciding.

You're not familiar with the history of family law in Canada, are you, Snert? You're not familiar with the historic battles feminists waged in the 1970s and 1980s on that turf, are you?

I have no idea whether culture-specific arbitration courts would pressure women into accepting oppressive conditions on their lives or unfair legal settlements or other discriminatory measures. I do know that white men do that to their womenfolk -- daughters, wives, sisters -- every day in Canada in "private" life. I know that for sure, and I know that every woman has reason to be concerned that that continues to be true.

I am saying the obvious: an adult who does not wish to be interfered with in her private choices should not be unless we are looking at criminality of other kinds (at some point the police do have to step in to battery cases, eg, even when women don't want that, and many don't). But if she decides that she's leaving the private compacts behind and asks for the justice promised every adult citizen by the Charter, then there's no question -- she gets all our support.

Snert, you are a kitchen-sink contrarian (by kitchen sink, I mean as in "everything but the ...") You persist in dodging issues of democratic principle by imagining utterly irrelevant and trivial examples pulled out of the ether every which way. It is boring to argue with you. If you're not arguing from the Charter, then I'm not interested.