War against Hijab and Jilbab, now in Canada!

**Ramadhan** · 03-10-2010

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

**Skavau** · 03-11-2010

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.

**جوري** · 03-11-2010

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

**theblackcloud** · 03-11-2010

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.

**sister herb** · 03-12-2010

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?

**Skavau** · 03-12-2010

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.

**Skavau** · 03-12-2010

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.

**sister herb** · 03-12-2010

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.

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.

**Skavau** · 03-12-2010

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.

**Pygoscelis** · 03-13-2010

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).

**CosmicPathos** · 03-13-2010

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.

**CosmicPathos** · 03-13-2010

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.

**sister herb** · 03-13-2010

Have in Canada similar school dress to every students? In some countries it have.

**sister herb** · 03-13-2010

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.

**Skavau** · 03-13-2010

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.

**Pygoscelis** · 03-13-2010

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?

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

**Italianguy** · 03-13-2010

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

! It would be really cool here

Free government supplied samosas for everyone!!!!! No more taxes, well.....maybe only taxing atheists and agmostics

Some one has to pay the samosa chefs

Deffinetly have to keep them happy!

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

Okay....back to reality

**CosmicPathos** · 03-13-2010

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

You mean you're not from Pluto like you claim in your status?

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.

**Pygoscelis** · 03-13-2010

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).

**Italianguy** · 03-13-2010

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

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!

**transition?** · 03-13-2010

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.