/* */

PDA

View Full Version : War against Hijab and Jilbab, now in Canada!



Ramadhan
03-10-2010, 07:21 AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1495610/

Ingrid Peritz

Montreal — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Mar. 09, 2010 9:59PM EST Last updated on Tuesday, Mar. 09, 2010 10:02PM EST

Naema Ahmed was writing a French exam in a Muslim face covering Tuesday morning when she was called out of class and presented with an ultimatum: the veil or school.

She chose her religious veil and went home. It was the Egyptian immigrant's second attempt to enroll in a government-subsidized French class and her second effective expulsion by Quebec authorities – part of a hardening line over religious headwear in the province.

“ There is no ambiguity on this question: If you want to [attend] our classes, if you want to integrate in Quebec society, here our values are that we want to see your face. ”— Immigration Minister Yolande James

Quebec says it is preparing new rules on religious displays for those seeking to use public services in the province. But yesterday the government made it clear there were no doubts about its intentions.

“There is no ambiguity on this question: If you want to [attend] our classes, if you want to integrate in Quebec society, here our values are that we want to see your face,” Immigration Minister Yolande James said.

Quebec has staked out an increasingly tough position on religious displays, at a time when the province faces a growing presence of Muslims and other religious minorities. Premier Jean Charest's Liberal government has come under pressure from the opposition Parti Québécois to adopt measures to protect Quebec secularism and the equality of men and women.

Ms. James promised the government would bring in tougher though unspecified measures: “We are working on appropriate action that we will take in the coming time.”

Ms. Ahmed's case has already reignited the explosive debate over the accommodation of religious minorities in Quebec. The 29-year-old had chosen to leave a government French class rather than expose her face at a Montreal college last fall; she said she turned to government-sponsored classes at a community centre in her neighbourhood because she was determined to learn French.

She said no one complained about her veil since she started attending classes in the new school in late January. But on Friday, after her story had gained widespread media attention in Quebec, a teacher at the school spotted her and alerted provincial officials, who dispatched a civil servant to the school. He was accompanied by an Arabic interpreter.

Ms. Ahmed said that when she saw the Quebec official, she started to cry.

“It wasn't fair for them to ask me to leave the exam,” she said in a phone interview. “I feel like the government is following me everywhere.”

While there is no law banning the wearing of religious headwear in Quebec, officials say they were acting yesterday on the basis of “pedagogical principles.” A student's mouth should be visible so the teacher can work on pronunciation, one official said.

Ms. Ahmed was told that she could follow French classes online. But the mother of three said she's feeling depressed and doesn't know if she'll pursue her lessons.

“I'll just stay in my house. This will solve the problem.”

On Monday, Christine St-Pierre, the Quebec minister responsible for the status of women, called the niqab and burka “ambulatory prisons” that violate a woman's right to equality.

“There are people in Quebec, in Canada, and other countries around the world, who have gone to Afghanistan and spilled their blood so that these things won't be tolerated,” Ms. St-Pierre said. “Here, we cannot tolerate this sort of thing.”

Ms. Ahmed's treatment has also sparked sharp divisions in the Muslim community over the wearing of the headwear. Salam Elmenyawi, president of the Muslim Council of Montreal, said Quebec is pushing Ms. Ahmed into isolation and depriving her of the ability to learn French and integrate into society.

“We're missing a good opportunity to educate this woman and let her learn our language and culture. We're telling her: Don't go out,” he said.

But the Muslim Canadian Congress, which has called for a ban, applauded Quebec's attitude toward the niqab and burka.

“This is an attire worn in the desert during sandstorms. It's got nothing to do with religion,” said Tarek Fatah, founder of the congress. “It's a very clear sign that women are the possessions of men, and it's being thrust on North America and Europe. Most Muslims are fed up with the niqab and burka.”

With a report from Rhéal Séguin
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Maryan0
03-10-2010, 10:17 PM
I think Quebec has always had a problem with the niqab and the hijaab (probably trying to be like France that does not even consider quebecers truly french) so this isnt new but some of the requests this lady was making in regards to the classroom were ridiculous.
Salam
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
03-11-2010, 02:57 AM
If you want to [attend] our classes, if you want to integrate in Quebec society, here our values are that we want to see your face. ”—
i thought their values were freedom of speech and religion? in that case, if anything, they should be warming to the idea of it.



these things are just spiraling out of control, really :hmm:

freedom of speech and liberty? sure, pull the other one.
Reply

Eliphaz
03-11-2010, 03:09 AM
Yes this is double standards, but any less than a Shariah state which does not allow non-Muslims to display religious symbols?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Pygoscelis
03-11-2010, 03:19 AM
Is it double standards? Do you really think I would be allowed to write that exam wearing a ski mask? No. She should not be given special treatment on religious grounds. If I can not cover my face during the exam, neither can she.
Reply

جوري
03-11-2010, 03:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
i thought their values were freedom of speech and religion? in that case, if anything, they should be warming to the idea of it.



these things are just spiraling out of control, really :hmm:

freedom of speech and liberty? sure, pull the other one.
Not out of control than any other period of history.. Islam by its nature is very magisterial and imposing.. all they do is create more publicity and more conversions.. it is a sad reality because the harder they push the more converts wal7mdlillah..

at the end it will wreak havoc on their heads insha'Allah as they push for a world war III, they create awareness and solidarity in the Muslim world and that is exactly what we have wanted all along no matter the drive behind it.. surely no unity will be established in splendor, but in hardship and strife -- Allah swt is creating the schism of the end in a seemingly natural manner.. and we know the outcome insha'Allah.. and pls allow me to quote the Noble Quran:

17-81 And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."


:w:
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
03-11-2010, 03:20 AM
Yes this is double standards, but any less than a Shariah state which does not allow non-Muslims to display religious symbols?
im not sure your logic is holding up to scrutiny. at least we are honest and stick to our words, unlike these "democratic" "freedom-loving" countries who supposedly promote freedom and yet practically attack and target those who dont agree with their view. jokes on you guys.


Is it double standards? Do you really think I would be allowed to write that exam wearing a ski mask? No. She should not be given special treatment on religious grounds. If I can not cover my face during the exam, neither can she.
your logic is also flawed. what who wears and when is beyond the point here. why dont these so-called freedom loving countries welcome these things, instead of attacking them. its contradictory.
and i dont think anyone's ever forbidden anyone who wearing a ski-mask in an exam?
Reply

Italianguy
03-11-2010, 03:21 AM
Why do everyone make such big deal about women wearing hijab or headress?? I don't understand what is wrong with it? Why no one want this? It is up to that person to do this...right?
Reply

جوري
03-11-2010, 03:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Italianguy
Why do everyone make such big deal about women wearing hijab or headress?? I don't understand what is wrong with it? Why no one want this? It is up to that person to do this...right?
The atheist fellow likes to hold on to extreme views and makes plenty of driveling non-points with them.. perhaps someone should define for him the difference between a head vs face scarf? a boycott vs. violent protest.. a fart from a hard core manure.. as he leans so much toward the latter and enjoys spreading it around ^o)
Reply

Italianguy
03-11-2010, 03:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Is it double standards? Do you really think I would be allowed to write that exam wearing a ski mask? No. She should not be given special treatment on religious grounds. If I can not cover my face during the exam, neither can she.
Religious grounds and just plain crazy are 2 different things. If she want to wear hijab and take test...SO BE IT! It has religious ties and should be recognised! I wore my rosary beads to school around my neck when I was younger, and they said I can't pray and or wear them, it wasn't fair to others! I said "when these other kids pick up their sagging pants and the women put some more clothes on , you have a deal", "Until then, I will be praying for them...inschool!" I was suspended^o) When I came back...I had my rosary beads on and prayed during class quitely! They can't take away my religion and right to practice it!!!:raging::raging::raging:

Why does your opinion matter? You an athiest! Go ahead and wear ski mask. Sis will be sisting next to me in class with hijab on! And I will have my rosary beads on! And if you tell her to take her hijab off, I am going to defend her!
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-11-2010, 04:56 AM
Enough with the angry emoticons lol. Calm down dude, you'll blow a gasket.

It has religious ties and should be recognised!
No, this is exactly the problem. Nothing should be recognized and allowed just because it has religious ties. No special rules or allowances because somebody has some religious view or another. That goes for everyone.

I have no issue with your rosary beads, as there's nothing stopping me from wearing friendship beads or any other kind of beads. Its a whole different category than face coverings or ceremonial daggers, etc.

Why does your opinion matter? You an athiest!
This exposes you completely. Indeed why should my opinion matter? Or that of anybody else who is being denied special rights due to not belonging to a particular religion? Perhaps because I am Canadian and actually have lived in Quebec and have family there and have voted there?

And if you tell her to take her hijab off, I am going to defend her!
Defend her how exactly? If she's asking for special rights and pointing to her religion she hasn't any ground to stand on. Quebec isn't a theocratic province, but a secular one. If you want theocracy go elsewhere.
Reply

Beardo
03-11-2010, 04:58 AM
I honestly never expected Canada to get involved in this. There's such a large active Muslim population there, masha'Allah. And I heard they were very cooperative. Insha'Allah, I'm pretty sure they will NOT follow through.
Reply

Joe98
03-11-2010, 06:14 AM
You cannot sit an exam with the face covered. If you could, then you could get an expert to take the exam in you're place!

-
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-11-2010, 03:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Rashad
I honestly never expected Canada to get involved in this. There's such a large active Muslim population there, masha'Allah. And I heard they were very cooperative. Insha'Allah, I'm pretty sure they will NOT follow through.
You may be thinking of the stories of the "sharia courts" in Ontario. A few years back us Ontarioans allowed muslims to settle some of their civil disputes with arbitrators who did their decision making based on sharia law. The big difference is that in that case no special rights are being given. Anybody can have an arbitrator using whatever agreed upon decision making system the two parties agree on (even flipping a coin). The decisions can only effect certain aspects of life and must not violate Canadian law.

There was a big stink raised over these "courts".... in the US. In Ontario nobody really cared. But down in the US where islamophobia was running much more rabid people had all kinds of crazy misunderstandings of how muslims were taking over Canada and imposing Sharia on us all.
Reply

aadil77
03-11-2010, 03:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
You cannot sit an exam with the face covered. If you could, then you could get an expert to take the exam in you're place!

-
A woman wearing niqab should be able to take an exam with only women around, that way she can take it off for ID purposes.
Reply

Skavau
03-11-2010, 03:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ummu Safayaan
your logic is also flawed. what who wears and when is beyond the point here. why dont these so-called freedom loving countries welcome these things, instead of attacking them. its contradictory.
and i dont think anyone's ever forbidden anyone who wearing a ski-mask in an exam?
I will qualify this and state that I am against the proposition that the niqaab or hijab ought to be forbidden in public. People ought to have the right to wear what they like in public, or in their own homes.

However if what someone wears flouts the uniform regulations of a location then they must comply if they wish for continued access to that location. I see no reason why hijabs in general cannot simply be incorporated to school uniform standards in any secular nation (although this is an ideal of mine). I do see a more difficult proposition in declaring that niqaabs also be accepted (as it does open up the floodgates for people to just wander in wearing ski-masks, or something stupid like wrapping bandages around their head).

In short and to more relevance to your point, it does matter in this instance what people wear. It has to matter to an educational establishment that wishes to propose specific uniform requirements cannot be hypocritical, or provide specific exemptions to a specific group. Decreeing that the Hijab or Niqaab in an educational (or any) establishment as reason to become exempt to uniform requirements is asking for treatment on religious grounds, which is frankly unwarranted.
Reply

aamirsaab
03-11-2010, 03:53 PM
:sl:
Why did the school take half an academic year to make a decision? I mean if it posed a real problem, they wouldn't have allowed her to start the year.

And they pulled her out of a class exam to discuss the issue? Seems kinda incompetent really.
Reply

Skavau
03-11-2010, 03:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:
Why did the school take half an academic year to make a decision? I mean if it posed a real problem, they wouldn't have allowed her to start the year.

Seems kinda incompetent really.
Yeah, it is.

They might have been worried about causing 'offence'. Reading the article, it appears its all be handled badly. The girl in question has been misled and probably feels confused.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-11-2010, 04:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
A woman wearing niqab should be able to take an exam with only women around, that way she can take it off for ID purposes.
Quebec schools are partially and often entirely funded by tax dollars. Why should my tax dollars pay for an extra exam room and exam monitor to satisfy somebody's religious beliefs? Perhaps if she paid a fee for the extra costs. But even then it opens the doors to others who may want the same, on other personal and non-religious grounds. Should I as of right be entitled to write the exam in my own room and with my own monitor? Thats the question. If yes, then ok.
Reply

Uthman
03-11-2010, 04:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Quebec schools are partially and often entirely funded by tax dollars. Why should my tax dollars pay for an extra exam room and exam monitor to satisfy somebody's religious beliefs?
Because you're a kind, considerate and understanding person? :D
Reply

Italianguy
03-11-2010, 04:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Enough with the angry emoticons lol. Calm down dude, you'll blow a gasket.



No, this is exactly the problem. Nothing should be recognized and allowed just because it has religious ties. No special rules or allowances because somebody has some religious view or another. That goes for everyone.

I have no issue with your rosary beads, as there's nothing stopping me from wearing friendship beads or any other kind of beads. Its a whole different category than face coverings or ceremonial daggers, etc.



This exposes you completely. Indeed why should my opinion matter? Or that of anybody else who is being denied special rights due to not belonging to a particular religion? Perhaps because I am Canadian and actually have lived in Quebec and have family there and have voted there?



Defend her how exactly? If she's asking for special rights and pointing to her religion she hasn't any ground to stand on. Quebec isn't a theocratic province, but a secular one. If you want theocracy go elsewhere.
Sorry dudeimsad, I didn't mean to insult you or anything. i apollogise for getting fired up, thats usually not my nature. I have just had allot going on latelyimsad

God be with you friend.
Reply

جوري
03-11-2010, 05:02 PM
everybody's tax dollar goes into something they dislike.. why should my tax dollar fund illegal wars and occupations, or free hospitalization to drunks, or to pay for ridiculous law suits against the city because some fat social climbing turd decided that if he tripped on the street it means the city is responsible to pay him millions of dollars, why should my money go to fund methodone clinics for heroine addicts or new Humvees for dumb high school dropouts so they can practice some lewd sado-masochistic sex in foreign prisons..

If you don't like a room for prayers.. then tough.. Muslims pay taxes as you do for alot less reasonable causes!

can't have it both ways!
Reply

Souljette
03-11-2010, 05:08 PM
Assalamualikum,
this is what is happening now ... what to do.. it happens everywhere..personal attack or public :(
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-11-2010, 05:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
everybody's tax dollar goes into something they dislike.. why should my tax dollar fund illegal wars and occupations, or free hospitalization to drunks, or to pay for ridiculous law suits against the city because some fat social climbing turd decided that if he tripped on the street it means the city is responsible to pay him millions of dollars, why should my money go to fund methodone clinics for heroine addicts or new Humvees for dumb high school dropouts so they can practice some lewd sado-masochistic sex in foreign prisons..

If you don't like a room for prayers.. then tough.. Muslims pay taxes as you do for alot less reasonable causes!

can't have it both ways!
Separation of church and state is something we backwards secular countries find important. I realize you enlightened folk would prefer your theocratic mandates, but I'm afraid Quebec just isn't the place for that.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-11-2010, 05:37 PM
One thing I'd like to point out is that cases such as this are not cases of discrimination against the group but failures to discriminate in favour of the group. Its an important distinction to keep in mind when people try to play the victim card.
Reply

جوري
03-11-2010, 05:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Separation of church and state is something we backwards secular countries find important. I realize you enlightened folk would prefer your theocratic mandates, but I'm afraid Quebec just isn't the place for that.
Freedom of religion doesn't equate to freedom from religion, I realize you don't understand what it is that you actually preach given you have no baseline to stand on-- but your opinion as is your tax dollar is negligible atheists and their manifestos compose a small percentage of the population, frankly your tax dollars combined isn't enough to get public toilets clean ..

all the best
Reply

Skavau
03-11-2010, 05:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Freedom of religion doesn't equate to freedom from religion, I realize you don't understand what it is that you actually preach given you have no baseline to stand on-- but your opinion as is your tax dollar is negligible atheists and their manifestos compose a small percentage of the population, frankly your tax dollars combined isn't enough to get public toilets clean ..

all the best
Well if we're going by population size, Muslims form a smaller minority than the secular groupings in Canada.

Just sayin'.
Reply

جوري
03-11-2010, 05:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Well if we're going by population size, Muslims form a smaller minority than the secular groupings in Canada.

Just sayin'.
Theists combined make a far larger group than secularists, now-- no one is imposing a 'prayer on you' in a public setting, however most theists would like their spiritual needs met, and I can't imagine that being bothersome especially if in a private setting!

all the best
Reply

Skavau
03-11-2010, 05:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Theists combined make a far larger group than secularists, now-- no one is imposing a 'prayer on you' in a public setting, however most theists would like their spiritual needs met, and I can't imagine that being bothersome especially if in a private setting!

all the best
You have no idea what most theists want. Most theists, specifically and generally Christians (in the western world) are also Secularists and believe in the importance of the seperation of religion and state.

And there is, and I have no problem with anyone having their needs in any sense being met in private. There is no issue in this thread regarding what people desire to do in their private life.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-11-2010, 06:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Freedom of religion doesn't equate to freedom from religion,
Actually it does. You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from the other guy's religion. Thats a big part of why church/state separation is so important in multicultural societies like Canada.

The very reason Islam is tolerated at all in Quebec is because secularists fought for freedom from the religion of the catholic church.
Reply

جوري
03-11-2010, 06:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
You have no idea what most theists want. Most theists, specifically and generally Christians (in the western world) are also Secularists and believe in the importance of the seperation of religion and state.

And there is, and I have no problem with anyone having their needs in any sense being met in private. There is no issue in this thread regarding what people desire to do in their private life.
If I am not qualified to speak on behalf of theists, I imagine you'd be even less so.. further if you have no issue regarding what people desire in their lives why do you partake in this dialogue? This is clearly addressing the fellow who thinks his tax money shouldn't allow a room for noon prayer.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Actually it does. You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from the other guy's religion. Thats a big part of why church/state separation is so important in multicultural societies like Canada.
No, it doesn't.. freedom of doesn't equal freedom from, I am not interested in your definitions..

I'd go fix your Olympic shame first so that guests in my country aren't dying on the luge before I extend myself to religion and philosophy..
take small steps and we'll be able to make sense of where you are going with this!

all the best
Reply

Skavau
03-11-2010, 06:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
If I am not qualified to speak on behalf of theists, I imagine you'd be even less so.. further if you have no issue regarding what people desire in their lives why do you partake in this dialogue? This is clearly addressing the fellow who thinks his tax money shouldn't allow a room for noon prayer.
My post here explains my perspective on this whole issue.

After you made your cheap point about atheists being a minority, you then made the assumption that every theist must by consequence be a theocrat, or an anti-secularist and therefore must oppose what Quebec and other nations, states alike have done. Neglecting of course to add that most theocracies historically have generally had little consideration for the 'spiritual needs' of polytheists, or decreed heretics.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-11-2010, 06:33 PM
I say again, the very reason Islam is tolerated at all in Quebec is because secularists fought for freedom from the religion of the catholic church. Without freedom from religion, this girl would not only be denied special rights, she may not even be allowed to enter the school to begin with.
Reply

جوري
03-11-2010, 06:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
My post here explains my perspective on this whole issue.

After you made your cheap point about atheists being a minority, you then made the assumption that every theist must by consequence be a theocrat, or an anti-secularist and therefore must oppose what Quebec and other nations, states alike have done. Neglecting of course to add that most theocracies historically have generally had little consideration for the 'spiritual needs' of polytheists, or decreed heretics.
little consideration for 'spiritual needs' is still negligible in the face of the death of millions at the hands of atheists.. It is never a difficult choice to make if we are solely to choose between two evils!

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Back when Christian theocracies ruled, this muslim girl would not only be denied special rights at the exam, she'd be forbidden to enter the school. If the theocracy was strict enough she may even be put to the torch along with us atheists. So no freedom from religion eh?
This Muslim girl would have been well taught no matter where, as she would only travel where enlightenment reigns not oppression! ..

A sensible head on ones shoulder is all that one really needs to get themselves out of difficult situations instead of complaining about how other folks dress and its lack of sexual aesthetics ..

all the best
Reply

Skavau
03-11-2010, 07:00 PM
little consideration for 'spiritual needs' is still negligible in the face of the death of millions at the hands of atheists.. It is never a difficult choice to make if we are solely to choose between two evils!
Tu Quoque.

We're not talking about now, are we? And there is not a false dichtonomy between Stalinism and Theocracy, is there? Focus.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-11-2010, 07:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
A sensible head on ones shoulder is all that one really needs to get themselves out of difficult situations instead of complaining about how other folks dress and its lack of sexual aesthetics ..
So you won't oppose nude beaches or same sex marriage? Good for you!

I'm sure you'll be happy to learn that a few years back Ontario courts struck down the law banning women from going topless in public. Freedom for all. Muslims can cover head to toe. The lady in Guelph can mow her lawn topless. Freedom for all!
Reply

جوري
03-11-2010, 07:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Tu Quoque.

We're not talking about now, are we? And there is not a false dichtonomy between Stalinism and Theocracy, is there? Focus.
Not a false dichotomy at all, and I don't think you know how to use a logical fallacy to your advantage. Firstly since not every atheist who ran the show and committed heinous crimes was a commie or a Stalinist and secondly, I don't see a point at all if ones position is always to choose between two evils.. Don't describe to me the glories of liberalism and democracy if you are equally bigoted and oppressive as the that which you fight against!


all the best
Reply

جوري
03-11-2010, 07:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
So you won't oppose nude beaches or same sex marriage? Good for you!
why oppose something that gives us all a hearty guffaw?
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-11-2010, 07:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
why oppose something that gives us all a hearty guffaw?
Its great that we finally agreeing. And since you enjoy laughing at homosexuals and nudists, I take it you also have no issue with us laughing at muslims and drawing cartoons? This could be a breakthrough right here.
Reply

جوري
03-11-2010, 07:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Its great that we finally agreeing. And since you enjoy laughing at homosexuals and nudists, I take it you also have no issue with us laughing at muslims and drawing cartoons? This could be a breakthrough right here.
I agree with you on nothing, seeing that you are unfamiliar with sarcasm as you are basic principles of similitude and logic..

further, I am not sure what is stopping you from laughing at Muslims or enjoying inflammatory cartoons? I think you are entire purpose here is to impose on the rest of us how lowliness and lack of social and moral restraints is the atheist norm.. We acknowledge that it takes more to behave like a civilized human being than to cave in to lowly animal desires!
Evolution will eventually set in for atheists too and you are sure to catch up to the rest of humanity.. until then..

all the best
Reply

Skavau
03-11-2010, 07:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Not a false dichotomy at all, and I don't think you know how to use a logical fallacy to your advantage. Firstly since not every atheist who ran the show and committed heinous crimes was a commie or a Stalinist and secondly
Yes it is. We're not talking about whether or not an anti-theistic dictatorship is better or not than a theocratic one. We are talking about the relevance of an educational establishment enforcing their uniform code on all of their students regardless of religious preference in a secular state.
Reply

جوري
03-11-2010, 07:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Yes it is. We're not talking about whether or not an anti-theistic dictatorship is better or not than a theocratic one. We are talking about the relevance of an educational establishment enforcing their uniform code on all of their students regardless of religious preference in a secular state.
Actually we are not, we are talking on how a head scarf on a Muslim girl precludes her from sitting and taking an exam.. in essence promoting both nudity (which is relative term depending on your perspective) and lack of education for those too principled will have to find an alternative route to accommodate their rights to an education.


all the best
Reply

theblackcloud
03-11-2010, 09:20 PM
In my opinion, she should have taken off the niqab for identification purposes. It is indeed a security issue when you cannot see who is under that dark veil. If I was the instructor, would I allow the woman to have worn a hijab or headscarf? Yes. Then, we would at least have been able to identify who she is and validate her as a student of the classroom.

My view is that people should be able to wear what they want, with two exceptions: 1, they do not force their choice of attire upon anybody else, and 2, they are not a security threat to others.
Reply

sister herb
03-12-2010, 01:54 PM
This is so typical in many similar discussions:

atheists say "it is public school and why I should accept they use my tax money for allowing some people wear/keep some religion signs (hijab etc)?"

Muslims too are tax payers. Why they should accept that in the schools and all the society they have to follow only the rules of non-believers (atheists)? Are those values and rules something common everybody should respect and follow?
Reply

Skavau
03-12-2010, 03:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Actually we are not, we are talking on how a head scarf on a Muslim girl precludes her from sitting and taking an exam..
It doesn't. No-one claims that it does. If the school, or educational establishment however has a uniform policy of any sort then they have every right to impose that regardless of religious or spiritual objections.

I believe, from what I've read on the article that the entire fiasco has been handled very badly by the Quebec authorities and that the woman in question may be left very, and unfortunately confused.

in essence promoting both nudity (which is relative term depending on your perspective) and lack of education for those too principled will have to find an alternative route to accommodate their rights to an education.
Whatever you think or I think promotes nudity in this context is irrelevant.
Reply

Skavau
03-12-2010, 03:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb
This is so typical in many similar discussions:

atheists say "it is public school and why I should accept they use my tax money for allowing some people wear/keep some religion signs (hijab etc)?"

Muslims too are tax payers. Why they should accept that in the schools and all the society they have to follow only the rules of non-believers (atheists)? Are those values and rules something common everybody should respect and follow?
These are specifically secular rules, not 'atheist rules' (whatever they may be). But you are right in one sense, yes Muslims in Canada do make up tax payers as well. You may then be somewhat surprised to have me state that any educational establishment has every right to work with as much as possible every religious adherent they permit into their classes. I don't, as a rule of thumb have the slightest problem with someone wishing to wear a hijab, or any religious clothing in a school providing that it is actually consistent with the uniform code.

If a school has decreed no head wear inside the building and find someone insistent on wearing a hoodie and someone else a religious item - they cannot very well have one rule for one and another for another. Not in a secular state.
Reply

sister herb
03-12-2010, 06:15 PM
I am not Canadian but also my country is "secular" and our schools too. But what seems to be different, all schools here have to make they rules by following our laws. No one school can make they own rules as they want.

Schools are under the municipal councils whose also have to follow common laws. In our schools students can use any religion signs they want - that is no problem to us. Here schools try to teach to they all students to respect others whose are different than common population; from different race, nations, religions etc.

I am lived in this kind of system and I really can´t see what is so difficult to allow one muslim child using hijab sitting another child who has cross on his neck and stuidy and take part to exams.

^o)

Seems Canadians have this problem. I only can regret for them.

By the way; how much difference here is "secular" state and "atheist" state? I see them quite same.
Reply

Skavau
03-12-2010, 06:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb
I am not Canadian but also my country is "secular" and our schools too. But what seems to be different, all schools here have to make they rules by following our laws. No one school can make they own rules as they want.
Sure. That's why these things happen. If a government run school was to just say that "Oh, well we don't allow headscarves in our dress-code but wearing the hijab for religious reasons is a valid exemption" that is contrary to secular law and if pressed on it, they really would not get away with it.

A school with a dress code to be fair must either forbid all head scarves, or headgear or forbid none. They can't have arbitrary exemptions. As I've said, if I was to run a school or have the power to influence its dress code I would have no problem with the incorporation of head scarves in general.

Schools are under the municipal councils whose also have to follow common laws. In our schools students can use any religion signs they want - that is no problem to us. Here schools try to teach to they all students to respect others whose are different than common population; from different race, nations, religions etc.
Ah, so there is no issue with this in Finland?

The problem specifically with jewellery and religious trinkets in most schools generally is an extension of the contempt for jewellery, tattoos etc. The same problem arises as it does with a headscarf if you let some students wear it but not others.

I am lived in this kind of system and I really can´t see what is so difficult to allow one muslim child using hijab sitting another child who has cross on his neck and stuidy and take part to exams.
I agree.

I don't have a problem with any establishment allowing people to wear headscarves, for whatever reason. The same goes with jewellery, etc.

By the way; how much difference here is "secular" state and "atheist" state? I see them quite same.
Well, what is an 'atheist' state? A state government that affirms non-belief in a deity? Atheism doesn't really assert anything else. If a state declares itself to be a Islamic state then we can infer their civil law from that. We can infer how their society is going to work and what it is going to be moulded towards.

'Secular' just means that the state cannot legislate on behalf of, or in favour of a specific religious belief. What is often missed out in secular is that it also cannot be 'anti-religious'. It can't legislate against people on the grounds of their religion.

Most Western First-World nations now are, in general secular. There are of course cultural hangovers and the passive effect of multi-religious communities attempting to influence their surroundings, but nonetheless most are Secular.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-13-2010, 04:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
A school with a dress code to be fair must either forbid all head scarves, or headgear or forbid none.
This is the key.

You can't come to our secular country and then demand special rights based on your religion. We just won't have it. And you can complain all you like that we won't discriminate in your favor. That said, as Skavau said, we'll also protect you from those discriminating against you, you won't find that in a theocratic state (where the ruling religion isn't yours).
Reply

CosmicPathos
03-13-2010, 04:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Is it double standards? Do you really think I would be allowed to write that exam wearing a ski mask? No. She should not be given special treatment on religious grounds. If I can not cover my face during the exam, neither can she.
You should ask for writing your exam with your underwear covering your face. No one has stopped you from covering your face in the exam. The only exception applies to caps because they are good tools for hiding cheating materials.

Ive always hated racist francophones. Ottawa MUST crackdown on these racist Québécois in order to uphold what Canada stands for: a melting pot of cultures where everyone learns about the other. Harper must also be shoved down the gutter into the sewers.
Reply

CosmicPathos
03-13-2010, 04:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This is the key.

You can't come to our secular country and then demand special rights based on your religion. We just won't have it. And you can complain all you like that we won't discriminate in your favor. That said, as Skavau said, we'll also protect you from those discriminating against you, you won't find that in a theocratic state (where the ruling religion isn't yours).
Your country? This is my country as much as yours.
Reply

sister herb
03-13-2010, 09:13 AM
Have in Canada similar school dress to every students? In some countries it have.
Reply

sister herb
03-13-2010, 09:19 AM
To those whose think here it is some kind of thread to they kids if they sit at school or at exams beside person who dress differently and have teached it is danger... I can say just sorry.

Different people are rich to you to know and rich to your own life. You may leanr from them. Never forget this.

:statisfie
Reply

Skavau
03-13-2010, 02:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
You should ask for writing your exam with your underwear covering your face. No one has stopped you from covering your face in the exam. The only exception applies to caps because they are good tools for hiding cheating materials.
I think they probably would ask you to take underwear from your head...

Ive always hated racist francophones. Ottawa MUST crackdown on these racist Québécois in order to uphold what Canada stands for: a melting pot of cultures where everyone learns about the other. Harper must also be shoved down the gutter into the sewers.
Just to point out, even if your claim for discrimination against Islam is true in this instance it is not racist. Islam is not a race.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-13-2010, 03:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
Your country? This is my country as much as yours.
You mean you're not from Pluto like you claim in your status? :D

C'mon, you must be from Pluto if you think they'll let you wear underwear on your head while writing an exam.
Reply

Italianguy
03-13-2010, 03:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
Your country? This is my country as much as yours.
Yes sir it is! It is our country, brother. i think I want to rename the US something else....how boring is "The United States".....How about.....Italianguys place:shade:! It would be really cool here;D Free government supplied samosas for everyone!!!!! No more taxes, well.....maybe only taxing atheists and agmostics;D Some one has to pay the samosa chefs^o) Deffinetly have to keep them happy!

Everyone would get to have a brand new Ferrari! And Mango Lassis on the house!:D

Okay....back to realityimsad
Reply

CosmicPathos
03-13-2010, 08:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
You mean you're not from Pluto like you claim in your status? :D

C'mon, you must be from Pluto if you think they'll let you wear underwear on your head while writing an exam.
I might have to move to pluto if bigots like you take over canada.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-13-2010, 09:57 PM
Interesting how you are attempting to turn this on its head. I am a bigot because I wish to deny a group of people special rights that others don't have? You're just not going to get away with playing the victim card to get special treatment. Not in the long run. Too often have we allowed this sort of thing to happen and it has to stop. We are all equals. Your group is not entitled to rights the rest of us don't get.

I don't care if its claiming a special right to hide your face or claiming a special right to carry a weapon (As some Sikhs have) or claiming a special right to get funding to push your agenda on youth (publicly funded Catholic schools) or claiming a special right to march naked through downtown Toronto (gay pride festivals).
Reply

Italianguy
03-13-2010, 10:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Interesting how you are attempting to turn this on its head. I am a bigot because I wish to deny a group of people special rights that others don't have? You're just not going to get away with playing the victim card to get special treatment. Not in the long run. Too often have we allowed this sort of thing to happen and it has to stop. We are all equals. Your group is not entitled to rights the rest of us don't get.

I don't care if its claiming a special right to hide your face or claiming a special right to carry a weapon (As some Sikhs have) or claiming a special right to get funding to push your agenda on youth (publicly funded Catholic schools) or claiming a special right to march naked through downtown Toronto (gay pride festivals).
heyyyyy, watch it! Some Sikhs hide knives in thear turbans...whats wrong with arming yourself? I wear black cashmere overcoats....you know...to hide my tommygun;D All Italians do, whats wrong with that?lol You don't need special government rights when your armed. I carry and I'm licensed....Paaaaaleassssseeee don't deny it... I will be ****ed if someone is going to mess with me or my wife and family!
Reply

transition?
03-13-2010, 10:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Sure. That's why these things happen. If a government run school was to just say that "Oh, well we don't allow headscarves in our dress-code but wearing the hijab for religious reasons is a valid exemption" that is contrary to secular law and if pressed on it, they really would not get away with it.

A school with a dress code to be fair must either forbid all head scarves, or headgear or forbid none. They can't have arbitrary exemptions. As I've said, if I was to run a school or have the power to influence its dress code I would have no problem with the incorporation of head scarves in general.


Ah, so there is no issue with this in Finland?

The problem specifically with jewellery and religious trinkets in most schools generally is an extension of the contempt for jewellery, tattoos etc. The same problem arises as it does with a headscarf if you let some students wear it but not others.


I agree.

I don't have a problem with any establishment allowing people to wear headscarves, for whatever reason. The same goes with jewellery, etc.


Well, what is an 'atheist' state? A state government that affirms non-belief in a deity? Atheism doesn't really assert anything else. If a state declares itself to be a Islamic state then we can infer their civil law from that. We can infer how their society is going to work and what it is going to be moulded towards.

'Secular' just means that the state cannot legislate on behalf of, or in favour of a specific religious belief. What is often missed out in secular is that it also cannot be 'anti-religious'. It can't legislate against people on the grounds of their religion.

Most Western First-World nations now are, in general secular. There are of course cultural hangovers and the passive effect of multi-religious communities attempting to influence their surroundings, but nonetheless most are Secular.
Yes, they can make exceptions. Religious symbolism is not an arbitrary exception.

They make exception with drugs at schools. Why does little Bobby get his share of prescription drugs or inhaler at school and I can't use the methamphetamines I created in my backyard meth lab?
exactly. Well Little Bobby has believe his inhaler is a necessity/mandatory and the school system takes his word and the authority, his doctor. Just as a Muslimah has deemed it necessary for her headscarves.
Reply

Skavau
03-13-2010, 11:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by transition?
Yes, they can make exceptions. Religious symbolism is not an arbitrary exception.
Yes it is. Especially in a secular state. I could declare that my religion is Jedi and I must be allowed to outright ignore the dress code (dressing in robes) due to that. If they allow others to ignore requirements on the basis of their personal beliefs then they must allow that also to me. I therefore insist also I must bring in a plastic lightsaber as well.

They make exception with drugs at schools. Why does little Bobby get his share of prescription drugs or inhaler at school and I can't use the methamphetamines I created in my backyard meth lab?
exactly. Well Little Bobby has believe his inhaler is a necessity/mandatory and the school system takes his word and the authority, his doctor. Just as a Muslimah has deemed it necessary for her headscarves.
Little Bobby doesn't 'believe' it is mandatory. It is mandatory. You are comparing apples with oranges. We allow these things you talk of due to health reasons. A secular state recognises health reasons. It does not recognise 'religious reasons'.
Reply

transition?
03-13-2010, 11:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Yes it is. Especially in a secular state. I could declare that my religion is Jedi and I must be allowed to outright ignore the dress code (dressing in robes) due to that. If they allow others to ignore requirements on the basis of their personal beliefs then they must allow that also to me. I therefore insist also I must bring in a plastic lightsaber as well.


Little Bobby doesn't 'believe' it is mandatory. It is mandatory. You are comparing apples with oranges. We allow these things you talk of due to health reasons. A secular state recognises health reasons. It does not recognise 'religious reasons'.
And Yes bobby does believe. And now you are making a call saying it is mandatory....ask yourself..are you an authority on what is or what isn't mandatory?
Why does it not recognize religious reasons as well health reasons? Are people's personal beliefs to be completely disregarded when they enter school? A person's belief are not to be accommodated for, but a person's health can. You're arguing that one is less important the other. You can argue both are just as crucial.

Then bring your plastic lightsaber to school. I have no problem and the school system i went to has no issue with it either.
Reply

Skavau
03-13-2010, 11:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by transition?
Why does it not recognize religious reasons as well health reasons?
Why would it? What part of Secular here is so confusing?

As I said in my original post that you quoted, I see and have no objection with people wearing religious trinkets, items of jewellery and items of cloathing in a centre of education. I think schools can be a bit over the top if they were to not accomadate their uniform for such small things, but nonetheless if a school is to say, no headgear of any sort and have it as a part of their policy - then they have every right to do that.

Are people's personal beliefs to be completely disregarded when they enter school? A person's belief are not to be accommodated for, but a person's health can. You're arguing that one is less important the other. You can argue both are just as crucial.
Not when it contravenes the schools dress code.

Then bring your plastic lightsaber to school. I have no problem and the school system i went to has no issue with it either.
Your school would have no problem with me dressing up as Jedi while everyone else must wear a uniform? You don't see the hypocrisy the school would be doing there? They'd be essentialy declaring their uniform null if cited as offensive due to religious reasons. Did your school even have uniform requirements?
Reply

transition?
03-13-2010, 11:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Why would it? What part of Secular here is so confusing?

As I said in my original post that you quoted, I see and have no objection with people wearing religious trinkets, items of jewellery and items of cloathing in a centre of education. I think schools can be a bit over the top if they were to not accomadate their uniform for such small things, but nonetheless if a school is to say, no headgear of any sort and have it as a part of their policy - then they have every right to do that.


Not when it contravenes the schools dress code.


Your school would have no problem with me dressing up as Jedi while everyone else must wear a uniform? You don't see the hypocrisy the school would be doing there? They'd be essentialy declaring their uniform null if cited as offensive due to religious reasons. Did your school even have uniform requirements?

I can barely understand the decision for a SECULAR state to follow UNIFORMITY at a PUBLIC school. Isn't that just against the very beliefs of a secular state? Also, it's obviously a group's personal belief what are permissible uniforms. Don't you think it's hypocritical to have someone's or a group of people's personal belief pushed on me that checkered shirts and collared t-shirts should be mandatory?!!? NOW tell me, what's so great about a secular state that maybe doesn't accommodate religious authorities by accommodates the opinions of some random people with some degrees in the school administration.

A secular state is flawed like that, it has such random authorities dictating what is necessary and what is not and what is proper and what is not. Then people complain about the "random authorities of religions."


Why does a public school ordained by a secular government, claiming certain liberties, have the right to dictate the opinions of the school administration or whatever administration is in office? I'd love to hear why people or any political party think certain skirts and shirts are better than others. Are they really the clothes experts? The top designers in the world would argue otherwise. lol. Why should I listen to Headmistress Big Bertha instead of Vera Wang? I can't believe the majority of Britain gave a right of clothing choice in school to random people. They must have so much trust in the school administration, as guided authorities on the best clothing for school.

I don't know about you, but I didn't elect the school administration, why do I have to follow them? Because the majority in school don't question jack, and follow the norm without any second thought. Should I be following the blind now?

We had a dress code, but not a specific uniform, but then again, why would they need a uniform when everyone is already in uniform. Gotta love America and its brainwashing methods. A dress code still imposes certain things which "this school administration" believes is necessary.

School systems have the right to do that ...and who gave them that authority? Even if a majority did give them that authority, who then has the authority to ignore the beliefs of the minority?

A secular state is just a giant mob of a majority of beliefs, it sways where ever it wants to, (which explains the differences even between secular states) and it can or cannot choose to give minorities rights. The authority in a secular state is either a mob or a few elites that have dumbed the mob under their control.

What a great system.
Reply

M.A.S.H.
03-14-2010, 12:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by transition?
A secular state is just a giant mob of a majority of beliefs, it sways where ever it wants to, and it can or cannot choose to give minorities rights. The authority in a secular state is either a mob or a few elites that have dumbed the mob under their control.

What a great system.
Where do you think minorities are treated better and given more rights on average? A secular state or an islamic state?

I agree with Skavau, a school has the right to enforce a dress code and discipline students who do not follow it, especially in such cases. A niqab not only vioaltes the dress code, it also poses identification and safety concerns.
Of course, an ideal school wouldn't discriminate against niqabis.
Reply

transition?
03-14-2010, 12:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.A.S.H.
Where do you think minorities are treated better and given more rights on average? A secular state or an islamic state?

I agree with Skavau, a school has the right to enforce a dress code and discipline students who do not follow it, especially in such cases. A niqab not only vioaltes the dress code, it also poses identification and safety concerns.
Of course, an ideal school wouldn't discriminate against niqabis.
Both states are discriminatory towards minorities because it's physically impossible to give in to all minorities, especially contradicting ones. In secular countries, whatever the majority believes is moral and correct, the minorities that fall outside of that get marginalized, imprisoned, sent to death row...etc. Secularists like to argue that they adhere to logic/rationality, logic and rationality can support multiple, even contradicting things. It just depends on the judgment call of the majority.
In an Islamic state, Islam is considered the moral and correct standard. What it is outside of that cannot be considered equally.
It would be a hard thing to count the specific freedoms each one gives, although some people like to argue that one is more free than the other one, "ideally." It's stupid argument. It's hard to quantify "freedom" and so many people have so many interpretations.. some freedoms can "weigh" more than others. It goes down to personal belief. The difference is that Islam is ordained by Allah (swt) and secularism is bunch of people who give themselves authority or people give authority. And how one opinion is a greater authority or a more right authority is also questionable. Secularism is the dilemma, not an answer to the dilemma.

In such cases? I could argue any dress is a safety concern because you could tear and make a long piece and strangle someone. I could also argue large amounts of make up that makes one look a clown is an identification concern. Visual identification itself can be deceiving. Why are relying on that anyways?
Reply

transition?
03-14-2010, 12:34 AM
Also, A SECULAR GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE ANY RIGHT/FREEDOM FROM ITS PEOPLE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE CAN VOTE THEY CAN TAKE AWAY.

It's kind of arbitrary on whether it really offers "more rights." Only if the majority want to give those rights or have those rights.
The things is most secular states are republics, so IDEALLY (which NEVER happens) a small elected minority reflects everyone else. I bet if we democratically voted for a lot of those issues, people would say no to a lot of things.

I'm pretty sure, there's a huge majority that's probably anti-taxes or anti-income taxes.

My right to the best prices under the capitalistic economy is definitely thwarted by the few individuals in the sugar lobby that have their protectionist policy that harms the consumers, who most definitely are the majority..

I guess when it comes to lobbyists and the rich, secular states do give more rights to minorities lulz.
Reply

transition?
03-14-2010, 12:36 AM
Also, what's the point of giving certain minorities rights, while you can't accommodate all of them anyways? You're still picking and choosing and by what basis and what authority creates that basis?
Reply

Skavau
03-14-2010, 12:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by transition
I can barely understand the decision for a SECULAR state to follow UNIFORMITY at a PUBLIC school. Isn't that just against the very beliefs of a secular state? Also, it's obviously a group's personal belief what are permissible uniforms. Don't you think it's hypocritical to have someone's or a group of people's personal belief pushed on me that checkered shirts and collared t-shirts should be mandatory?!!?
This of course, is an argument as to whether it is necessary for schools to have a dress code. I don't believe dress codes in any case need be so archaic and uniform that it insists on the removal of jewellery, trinkets (religious or otherwise) or headscarves, but nonetheless if a school has a dress code they cannot very well provide arbitrary exemptions based on 'religious reasons'.

NOW tell me, what's so great about a secular state that maybe doesn't accommodate religious authorities by accommodates the opinions of some random people with some degrees in the school administration.
In a secular state, there ought not be any such thing as 'religious authorities'. They would have no legal power.

A secular state is flawed like that, it has such random authorities dictating what is necessary and what is not and what is proper and what is not. Then people complain about the "random authorities of religions."
Why would a specific and considered uniform policy be anymore random that religious prescriptions for dressing?

Why does a public school ordained by a secular government, claiming certain liberties, have the right to dictate the opinions of the school administration or whatever administration is in office? I'd love to hear why people or any political party think certain skirts and shirts are better than others. Are they really the clothes experts? The top designers in the world would argue otherwise. lol. Why should I listen to Headmistress Big Bertha instead of Vera Wang? I can't believe the majority of Britain gave a right of clothing choice in school to random people. They must have so much trust in the school administration, as guided authorities on the best clothing for school.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. This not a fashion statement.

And by the way, they don't. If certain schools have the right to impose their own uniform restrictions then they can only impose it within their boundaries. They are of course restricted by the government if state-run and can be held to account.

In this article, it focuses specifically on the Quebecan government deciding that the hijab (or niqaab in this instance, I believe) is contrary to the 'Canadian' way of life and should not be tolerated in educational establishments. I happen to disagree with an overarching rule and have argued that it is the complete wrong way to address Muslims and affront to what liberty actually means - but nonetheless, my core point is that a specific school that has a uniform policy has the right to allow or not allow headscarves. If they begin allowing exemptions based on religion, then they open up themselves to allowing any exemption based on anything.

We had a dress code, but not a specific uniform, but then again, why would they need a uniform when everyone is already in uniform. Gotta love America and its brainwashing methods. A dress code still imposes certain things which "this school administration" believes is necessary.
??

You are now, just arguing against the power of schools and suggesting some student rebellion against uniform standards there. This is another discussion in and of itself.

And we're not even talking about America. I live in Britain and this article is from Canada!

School systems have the right to do that ...and who gave them that authority? Even if a majority did give them that authority, who then has the authority to ignore the beliefs of the minority?
They're state-run, so the government did.

Again, you're arguing against the application of law now... so I have nothing to address here.

A secular state is just a giant mob of a majority of beliefs, it sways where ever it wants to, (which explains the differences even between secular states) and it can or cannot choose to give minorities rights. The authority in a secular state is either a mob or a few elites that have dumbed the mob under their control.
^o)
Reply

Skavau
03-14-2010, 12:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by transition?
Also, A SECULAR GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE ANY RIGHT/FREEDOM FROM ITS PEOPLE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE CAN VOTE THEY CAN TAKE AWAY.
'Secular' means nothing other than separation of religion and state. That religion cannot influence or dictate what the system of governance ought to be.

Your statement is about a specific as stating that a government can take any right/freedom from its people.

And, by the way Secular does not necessitate Democracy.

It's kind of arbitrary on whether it really offers "more rights." Only if the majority want to give those rights or have those rights.
You're talking about Democracy (and direct democracy, which barely exists in Switzerland).

The things is most secular states are republics, so IDEALLY (which NEVER happens) a small elected minority reflects everyone else. I bet if we democratically voted for a lot of those issues, people would say no to a lot of things.
You appear to be ignoring the impact of public opinion on the decision of politicians and the application of politics on local, or state levels.

My right to the best prices under the capitalistic economy is definitely thwarted by the few individuals in the sugar lobby that have their protectionist policy that harms the consumers, who most definitely are the majority..

I guess when it comes to lobbyists and the rich, secular states do give more rights to minorities lulz.
Again, you're now complaining about Capitalism.

This post is just a rant.
Reply

M.A.S.H.
03-14-2010, 12:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by transition?
Also, what's the point of giving certain minorities rights, while you can't accommodate all of them anyways? You're still picking and choosing and by what basis and what authority creates that basis?
I agree that the rights a certain minority enjoys depends solely on the will of the majority, most secular states nowadays however run minority-friendly systems, that seeks to incorporate everyone's views and needs into the society as a whole. I did say which system gives more rights on AVERAGE.
Certain rights can be accomodated and some cannot. Accomodating some would also come in conflict with other people's rights. In this case you have a conflict of the schools right to enforce a dresscode and an individuals right to wear what they want. In this case, the school wins.
I've been to mosques and most require tourist women to cover their hair when inside the building? IS this not discrimination? It is, but an acceptable one, I guess so is the banning of niqabis in public schools in Quebec. It is depriving an insignificant amount of people from the right to wear absolutely everything everywhere in order to preserve the integrity of the school system.
Reply

Skavau
03-14-2010, 12:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by transition?
Both states are discriminatory towards minorities because it's physically impossible to give in to all minorities, especially contradicting ones.
Exactly.

Now you've conceded this, your entire rant above me about minorities being in trouble because pretty meaningless.

In secular countries, whatever the majority believes is moral and correct
You realise that in terms of application, this is true everywhere? If I was to relocate to an Islamic state, my beliefs on morality would marginalise me and I would be considered by the majority as 'immoral'.

, the minorities that fall outside of that get marginalized, imprisoned, sent to death row..
Can you give me an instance where a minority gets imprisoned or executed entirely for being a specific minority please?

etc. Secularists like to argue that they adhere to logic/rationality, logic and rationality can support multiple, even contradicting things. It just depends on the judgment call of the majority.
Rhetoric

In an Islamic state, Islam is considered the moral and correct standard. What it is outside of that cannot be considered equally.
This is of course, an arbitrary declaration. I as an atheist, have no reason to accept such a claim.

It would be a hard thing to count the specific freedoms each one gives, although some people like to argue that one is more free than the other one, "ideally." It's stupid argument. It's hard to quantify "freedom" and so many people have so many interpretations.. some freedoms can "weigh" more than others. It goes down to personal belief. The difference is that Islam is ordained by Allah (swt) and secularism is bunch of people who give themselves authority or people give authority. And how one opinion is a greater authority or a more right authority is also questionable. Secularism is the dilemma, not an answer to the dilemma.
The claim that Islam is ordained by Allah is in essence, to me, just your belief. You can decree it as valid, as infallible and relevant as you like. I do not accept the relevant claims to make me believe so. It is no different and I put in no more importance than I do a Christian claiming that the USA ought to become a Christian theocracy.
Reply

transition?
03-14-2010, 01:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
This of course, is an argument as to whether it is necessary for schools to have a dress code. I don't believe dress codes in any case need be so archaic and uniform that it insists on the removal of jewellery, trinkets (religious or otherwise) or headscarves, but nonetheless if a school has a dress code they cannot very well provide arbitrary exemptions based on 'religious reasons'.


In a secular state, there ought not be any such thing as 'religious authorities'. They would have no legal power.
Why would a specific and considered uniform policy be anymore random that religious prescriptions for dressing?



I have no idea what you are talking about here. This not a fashion statement.

And by the way, they don't. If certain schools have the right to impose their own uniform restrictions then they can only impose it within their boundaries. They are of course restricted by the government if state-run and can be held to account.

In this article, it focuses specifically on the Quebecan government deciding that the hijab (or niqaab in this instance, I believe) is contrary to the 'Canadian' way of life and should not be tolerated in educational establishments. I happen to disagree with an overarching rule and have argued that it is the complete wrong way to address Muslims and affront to what liberty actually means - but nonetheless, my core point is that a specific school that has a uniform policy has the right to allow or not allow headscarves. If they begin allowing exemptions based on religion, then they open up themselves to allowing any exemption based on anything.


??

You are now, just arguing against the power of schools and suggesting some student rebellion against uniform standards there. This is another discussion in and of itself.

And we're not even talking about America. I live in Britain and this article is from Canada!


They're state-run, so the government did.

Again, you're arguing against the application of law now... so I have nothing to address here.


^o)
That's the issue with secular states, it disregards religious reasons as "arbitrary" but allows for the personal beliefs of whoever is given authority. How is that even any better? Secularism is itself a state based on discrimination and hardly "equality for all." You address the opinions of certain people, but not anything "religious" because in the opinion of atheist it is incorrect but in the opinion of theist it is correct. So much for freedom. You uphold the opinions of some but disregard others. After all, I can claim any personal belief is arbitrary. Any fact is just opinion. I'm trying to point out how secular states take one authority over the other.

I just can't stand to say that secular states are "more free" when it's obvious they are not for certain beliefs, especially theists and those who deem religion is correct. Then atheist get so upset when a religious state disregards the opinion of atheists.
Reply

M.A.S.H.
03-14-2010, 01:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by transition?
I just can't stand to say that secular states are "more free" when it's obvious they are not for certain beliefs, especially theists and those who deem religion is correct. Then atheist get so upset when a religious state disregards the opinion of atheists.
A secular state, an ideal one, is free for theists. An ideal society would let the girl take the exam wearing a niqaab.
The crux of a secular society is that no one's religion can affect the life of another person. So even if catholics are the majority, they cannot enforce the lent or their views on medical ethics etc, excpet through democratic means, which are further limited by the secular idea of the state. In some countries citizens have the power to pass non-secular laws, like the case of switzerland, in some they don't.
Reply

Skavau
03-14-2010, 01:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by transition?
That's the issue with secular states, it disregards religious reasons as "arbitrary" but allows for the personal beliefs of whoever is given authority. How is that even any better?
No it doesn't. Authorities have to argue their case. They cannot just decree law based on "personal belief".

Secularism is itself a state based on discrimination and hardly "equality for all." You address the opinions of certain people, but not anything "religious" because in the opinion of atheist it is incorrect but in the opinion of theist it is correct. So much for freedom. You uphold the opinions of some but disregard others. After all, I can claim any personal belief is arbitrary. Any fact is just opinion. I'm trying to point out how secular states take one authority over the other.
What are you talking about?

You can get to any level of authority in a secular state, you just cannot declare rules based on religious scripture, or in favour of (or against) religious beliefs or influenced or directed by religious objectives.

I just can't stand to say that secular states are "more free" when it's obvious they are not for certain beliefs, especially theists and those who deem religion is correct. Then atheist get so upset when a religious state disregards the opinion of atheists.
What has to be the case for a belief in Islam to be considered 'free', exactly?
Reply

transition?
03-14-2010, 01:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.A.S.H.
I agree that the rights a certain minority enjoys depends solely on the will of the majority, most secular states nowadays however run minority-friendly systems, that seeks to incorporate everyone's views and needs into the society as a whole. I did say which system gives more rights on AVERAGE.
Certain rights can be accommodated and some cannot. Accommodating some would also come in conflict with other people's rights. In this case you have a conflict of the schools right to enforce a dresscode and an individuals right to wear what they want. In this case, the school wins.
I've been to mosques and most require tourist women to cover their hair when inside the building? IS this not discrimination? It is, but an acceptable one, I guess so is the banning of niqabis in public schools in Quebec. It is depriving an insignificant amount of people from the right to wear absolutely everything everywhere in order to preserve the integrity of the school system.
My point is that secular states, even democratic, argue that whole "freedom for all" spiel, but it's hardly ever like that. Freedom has its limits, discrimination has to be tolerated (like age when it comes to drinking..etc.), minorities have to be disregarded. When a state decides on those certain limits, why can one form of discrimination and freedom being taken away be tolerated and not others? Every state can justify its limitations depending on your own beliefs.

Where are we getting at? Essentially we have states that dictate our limits in society to us. It's not about the righteous freedom b.s. people are fed. A secular state can have whatever reason it pleases to create certain limits. It can disregard And a religious state has religious reasons.

You can't argue "on average." I can make the opposite argument easily. In Islamic state, there are tons of rights, like the right for the government not to tax your income, that you aren't thinking of. You're thinking every secular state is some kind of "limited government utopia." But that's hardly ever the case, a state is given lots of powers, it make amendments to its powers.

I can understand why one might argue that the basis of authority is better than the other one, and that's why choose to follow it. But arguing "more freedom" is ridiculous.
Reply

M.A.S.H.
03-14-2010, 02:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by transition?
I can understand why one might argue that the basis of authority is better than the other one, and that's why choose to follow it. But arguing "more freedom" is ridiculous.
It isn't. I qwill argue a Muslims living in Canada has more rights than a non-Muslim living in an Islamic state. By more rights I am referring to the ability to practice one's religion. For instance, you are free to give dawah, a kaffir in an islamic state is not. You are free to build mosques, wear whatever you like everywhere, instances such as this one are incredibly rare. And the list could go on.
Reply

CosmicPathos
03-14-2010, 02:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.A.S.H.
It isn't. I qwill argue a Muslims living in Canada has more rights than a non-Muslim living in an Islamic state. By more rights I am referring to the ability to practice one's religion. For instance, you are free to give dawah, a kaffir in an islamic state is not. You are free to build mosques, wear whatever you like everywhere, instances such as this one are incredibly rare. And the list could go on.
Canada is not a religious country: it is a melting pot where ALL cultures are respected as long as personal autonomy does not damage social justice. I do not think niqab is any more dangerous than a bikini. I am ok with a kaafir having less rights in a Muslim country and me being a Muslim having equal rights as a kaafir in a kaafir country such as Canada.

If Canada wants to ban niqab, Canada must ban public wearing of bikinis as well. Some people find bikini violent and it is not conducive to normal public interaction. Canada must also ban Santa. Some people get scared of that red clothe and long beard.
Reply

Ishaaq
03-14-2010, 03:03 AM
The ulama have mentioned it is forbidden for women to attend mixed gender educational institutions, so subhaan Allaah how is this even an issue for our women!
Reply

CosmicPathos
03-14-2010, 03:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ishaaq
The ulama have mentioned it is forbidden for women to attend mixed gender educational institutions, so subhaan Allaah how is this even an issue for our women!
there is no other way for them than to attend such institutions in the West. Only if the "custodians of two Holy mosques" had invested enough in the education of of this Ummah .... but no ... they need 50 rolls royce and 50 women in their harems.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-14-2010, 03:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by transition?
Also, what's the point of giving certain minorities rights, while you can't accommodate all of them anyways? You're still picking and choosing and by what basis and what authority creates that basis?
This is my whole point in this thread. No group, minority or otherwise, should be "given rights". Everybody should have the same rights. That means no special treatment for anybody or against anybody. It means you can't wear the islamic veil if I can't wear the ski mask, in that you can't cover your face if I can't cover mine. It also means that if we change the rule to mean you CAN cover your face, then so can I. Its really quite simple. The face covering is just one example, and a rather benign one really. Consider the Sikh ceremonial dagger for example. Should we all be allowed to carry around knives everywhere we go?
Reply

Ishaaq
03-14-2010, 03:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
there is no other way for them than to attend such institutions in the West. Only if the "custodians of two Holy mosques"(may Allaah preserve them) had invested enough in the education of of this Ummah .... but no ... they need 50 rolls royce and 50 women in their harems.
What do you mean "no other way"? As if the muslims will be dedstroyed if they don't get a secular westernized education!
True knowledge is knowledge of the religion and the creed, not knowledge of psychology or physics or politics and all that useless stuff. If only the muslims desired to become ulama and huffaz rather than doctors and lawyers, perhaps we wouldn't be the weak divided ummah that we have become.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-14-2010, 03:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
If Canada wants to ban niqab,
Nobody is advocating the outright banning of niqab. In some places it can't be allowed due to security and identity reasons. These are valid concerns. This is not blind bigotry. Where bigotry takes over (such as profiling muslims at airports for extra security checks, etc) I'll oppose it. But here we are talking about writing an exam, a school dress code, and hiding one's face/identity. Contrary to your post a few pages ago, this school would not let me wear underwear on my head to write the exam. Why should I be given any more leeway if I claimed it to be my religious duty?
Reply

CosmicPathos
03-14-2010, 03:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ishaaq
What do you mean "no other way"? As if the muslims will be dedstroyed if they don't get a secular westernized education!
True knowledge is knowledge of the religion and the creed, not knowledge of psychology or physics or politics and all that useless stuff. If only the muslims desired to become ulama and huffaz rather than doctors and lawyers, perhaps we wouldn't be the weak divided ummah that we have become.
I disagree with you. Religious knowledge is fard kafaya. As some members of community are doing it, its not obligatory to know all those details. Rather, scientific education is necessary for each and every muslim in addition to knowing basics of their deen.

The lack of this interest for science has forced us to find ourselves in the situation we find ourselves in today. Our unwillingness to push scientific education has made the populace believe that religious knowledge is synonymous with faith while science is synonymous with atheism/disbelief. I've seen people with religious knowledge (search Aboo Ali on youtube, Al Azhar student) become atheists and Ive seen atheist scientists become Muslims ... we gotta shatter the myth in Ummah. inshAllah.
Reply

Ishaaq
03-14-2010, 06:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
I disagree with you. Religious knowledge is fard kafaya. As some members of community are doing it, its not obligatory to know all those details. Rather, scientific education is necessary for each and every muslim in addition to knowing basics of their deen.
So you are saying scientific education is fardh 'ayn, and is even more essential than knowledge of the religion?! Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajioon.

The lack of this interest for science has forced us to find ourselves in the situation we find ourselves in today. Our unwillingness to push scientific education has made the populace believe that religious knowledge is synonymous with faith while science is synonymous with atheism/disbelief. I've seen people with religious knowledge (search Aboo Ali on youtube, Al Azhar student) become atheists and Ive seen atheist scientists become Muslims ... we gotta shatter the myth in Ummah. inshAllah.
Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajioon! The reason for the downfall of the Ummah is because we don't "push scientific education"? My brother, the reason for our downfall is because we have left the sunnah and become involved in innovation, and in general turned away from our religion. And by the way, shoot al azhar, it is one of the most corrupt institutions in the Muslim world which is implementing modernism in the garb of religious learning.
Reply

M.A.S.H.
03-14-2010, 11:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
I am ok with a kaafir having less rights in a Muslim country and me being a Muslim having equal rights as a kaafir in a kaafir country such as Canada.
I'm not ok with people who fight for equal rights for themselves yet would deny equal rights to people in their theoretical states.
Reply

sister herb
03-14-2010, 03:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.A.S.H.
It isn't. I qwill argue a Muslims living in Canada has more rights than a non-Muslim living in an Islamic state. By more rights I am referring to the ability to practice one's religion. For instance, you are free to give dawah, a kaffir in an islamic state is not. You are free to build mosques, wear whatever you like everywhere, instances such as this one are incredibly rare. And the list could go on.
Have muslims more rights than Christians in Canada? Can Christians still built they churchs? Can Jews built there synagogues? Are muslims only there who can built mosques and others not?

;D

I will move to Canada just tomorrow!
Reply

aadil77
03-14-2010, 04:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
there is no other way for them than to attend such institutions in the West. Only if the "custodians of two Holy mosques" had invested enough in the education of of this Ummah .... but no ... they need 50 rolls royce and 50 women in their harems.
I'd be careful about that last statement, thats accusing them of zina
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!