People have different standards of behaviour according to their social background. I think the average American or European would be unhappy if someone said "I won't sit next to this person because they're black" for whatever reason, personal, religious etc.
The same people consider gender discrimination to be approximately as bad as race discrimination.
The Hisidic person in question has some kind of problem with women because of their own background.
Would it be fair to say that since I am from America that I should get upset at anyone who wears a hijab for their own religious purposes? Covering women is very anti-American, specifically being prominent in the most recent generations. Yet, as civilized people, we can come to the understanding that even though I don't support something doesn't mean that I have to tell others how to live their lives or expect them to live their lives in a way that makes me happy.
Oddly, almost this exact issue was a major issue in the recent Canadian federal election. The Conservative government attempted to ban niqabs during citizenship ceremonies. They went so far as to appeal lower court rulings that doing so was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They lost the election and the new Liberal government ended the attempt to ban the Niqab.
Interestingly, as the Conservative government kept falling in the polls, they even said that they would consider banning Niqabs for public servants!! It sounds so bizarre that a sitting Canadian government would suggest such a thing, but the 2015 federal election was a first class, direct flight to bizarro world.
This is the best article that I can find on this issue. It isn't great, but if I have more time later, I'll replace it with a better citation.
On a style note, I have no idea if the word niqab should be capitalized. My iPhone autocorrects it to be capitalized, but it doesn't look correct. Can anyone help?
Checked Wikipedia, doesn't look like it's usually capitalized mid-sentence in English. Users on the talk page appear inconsistent, but I don't think it would be grammatically correct to capitalize it mid-sentence as it's not a proper noun.
>> It sounds so bizarre that a sitting Canadian government would suggest such a thing
I, and many others who didn't vote Conservative, still supported their efforts to enforce a ban on such a regressive mode of dress during citizenship ceremonies. I don't think it's bizarre at all to address these sorts of things at a federal level. Citizenship is important and people who refuse to show their faces don't deserve it. I'm sorry if this doesn't match your ideal of an "inclusive" society or whatever.
So do I - which is why I think the only appropriate citizenship dress that properly demonstrates Canada's commitment to diversity is blue boot-cut jeans.
First, keep in mind that the sentence you quoted was related to a possible ban on public servants wearing the niqab.
I found it bizarre that the Conservative government would double down on the niqab issue by suggesting that they may ban public servants from wearing it. Doubling down on an issue that Justin Trudeau was gaining so many points on struck me as an admission that either they were running out of money, or they were competing against the NDP to be official opposition. It didn't make much strategic sense, especially considering former-PM Harper's 'old-stock' Canadian quote.
But, nothing about the last years of Conservative rule - from his fight against the public service, to his fight against science, to the Mike Duffy kerfuffle - made a lick of sense. It shouldn't have felt so bizarre that Harper would run a disjointed campaign, but he was otherwise an amazing campaigner.
As for the niqab during citizenship, I likely can't convince you because you'll mention that niqab's aren't even necessarily part of Islam. And, you'll mention that there is a possibility that their use is coerced.
All of those arguments are true and, for the record, I'm not a huge fan of the niqab, but I'm Catholic and I was born in Canada, so my views aren't particularly informed.
Rather, my only argument is that the Supreme Court gave some very stringent requirements for making a witness remove a niqab during trial.[1] The Supreme Court ruled that an outright ban on niqabs during testimony was wrong as, "rights should be limited only to the extent that the limits are shown to be justifiable."
I don't believe that we should have a lower standard during citizenship ceremonies. So ultimately, I think that we need strong justification to make it okay to violate someone's freedom to get dressed as they see fit.
I'm not convinced that we need to see someone's lips move as there are other ways we can determine whether they are actually reciting the vow. If the Supreme Court argues that a witness whose face is covered does not always violate an accused person's right to a fair trial, I don't think we can argue that a person whose face is covered violates the sanctity of citizenship. Those arguments aside, I can't think of any other strong arguments against the niqab in citizenship ceremonies.
> Interestingly, as the Conservative government kept falling in the polls, they even said that they would consider banning Niqabs for public servants!! It sounds so bizarre that a sitting Canadian government would suggest such a thing, but the 2015 federal election was a first class, direct flight to bizarro world.
Imagine how it feels for those who find the idea of Canadian civil servants clad in hijabs to be bizarro world.
In Regina, Sask., Germantown (an area full of Eastern European immigrants) was the last area in town to get indoor plumbing. It was a highly controversial decision which eventually swung on the fear that Germantown's residents would side with Austria-Hungary during WW1.
'Bohunks' weren't treated particularly well in Canada at the time. Some Ukrainians were even put into internment camps during WW1!
Not even 80 years later, Roy Romanow (whose parents were Ukrainian immigrants) was sworn in as Premier of Saskatchewan. Some argue that he saved Saskatchewan from bankruptcy.
Perhaps the greatest joy of being Canadian is the knowledge that former outsiders have a sneaky habit of becoming among our greatest leaders! Therefore, I say wear hijabs. But when you lead, always fight to uphold the same freedom that gave you the chance to dress as you choose. :)
I think the closer analogy would be being asked to wear a hijab to satisfy someone else's religious beliefs. I don't think that's the same as being asked not to be seated next to a woman because it's looked down upon in your religion, but I can understand how people might be offended by it.
If anything, I think it's more likely that the annoyance was caused mostly by the delay itself rather than what was causing it.
> Would it be fair to say that since I am from America that I should get upset at anyone who wears a hijab for their own religious purposes?
No. Nor, even if by "American" you mean "person other than a Muslim who believes that woman should where the hijab", but the former is neither equivalent to nor does it imply the latter -- there are Americans who were the hijab for their own religious reasons -- is that really parallel to the issue at hand.
Now, if you were such a person -- and a woman -- and someone asked you to wear a hijab to accommodate their religion's prohibition for women being uncovered in the presence of non-related men, then that would be more parallel to (though arguably somewhat more extreme than) the situation at issue.
OTOH, an
Being asked to do something based on someone else religion, that's what wrong.
> Yet, as civilized people, we can come to the understanding that even though I don't support something doesn't mean that I have to tell others how to live their lives or expect them to live their lives in a way that makes me happy.
Which is exactly what's wrong in that situation, they had theses seats but because they are female, they were expected to move.
The same people consider gender discrimination to be approximately as bad as race discrimination.
The Hisidic person in question has some kind of problem with women because of their own background.