And here’s Bill 94: “The general practice holds that a member of the staff of the administration of government ... and a person to whom services are being rendered ... will have their faces uncovered during the rendering of services.”
Huh? General practice? Oh: “When an accommodation involves a change to this practice, it must be refused if motives related to security, communication or identification justify it.”
So there will be accommodations, then? You sure wouldn’t have known it from Wednesday’s news conference. “There are some fudges,” University of Montreal political science professor Daniel Weinstock says of Bill 94. “And that’s a strange fudge.”
“It certainly doesn’t jibe with the public relations message they’re putting out there,” he adds.
Right. And Iggy is just endorsing Charest's artful dodge, which is necessary to prevent the truly crazy people from legislating much worse. Sometimes the Conservative Menace must be beat down via stealth and deception. Shush, children, shush!
17 comments:
I saw a Muslim woman from the Muslim Congress....say that in reality the veil IS NOT required in their religion.
really...just a bunch of diversion...arent' there more important issues of the day to deal with. Yes, lets spend our limited time and efforts to deal with the 25 or so women in Quebec that actually wear the head-to-toe covering. While its true the bill 94 doesn't really do or change anything, but the perception is that the liberals (the party of the immigrant) is now on the same side of the conservatives and separatists. In that regard, the right wing is laughing all over the place.
This is Canada - the most multicultural and tolerant place on EARTH. Surely we could have dealt with this issue on a case by case bases without the need to make it a federal issue.
Oh, and I guess now the large CROSS will be coming down from the legislature in Quebec? Surely if the motive for bill 94 was secular and the removal of religion from the state, then it will. If it doesn't, then bill 94 does look like an attack on a particular minority.
So, for nudists, being nudist isn't a religious requirement, but is the traditional dress code.
Equal rights?
There's nothing "canny" about the guy so I guess that means "total shithead" is the default option.
Where can I join.
You were born a member, you cyber-stalking weirdo.
Canny Politician?
That's not even funny.
The issue is the treatment of woman.
Most are forced into bondage by wearing this.
It sends a message to would be immigrants. We are a country that will defend woman's rights.
If you wish to enslave your wife, we will stand up for her.
The left is caught on this issue because they believe in cultural relativism.
Canadian Muslim Congress endorses the ban. The left ought to as well.
"The left is caught on this issue because they believe in cultural relativism."
I never get tired of stupid wingnuts pretending to be informed.
We really need to rethink the diminishing returns of universal literacy.
Rotterdam is amongst the dumbest of the "informed" right. Excepting Wayne of course who is in his own category.
Rotterdam is amongst the dumbest of the "informed" right. Excepting Wayne of course who is in his own category.
I don't know how can you make distinctions like that. They're all irrational, so judging who's dumbest is, well, moot at best.
Hey we are missing something here.
Where is Tomm, Wilson, Bubba, and Fred from BC?
They could join Wayne, and Rotterdam, and kinda make the morons brigade a little more interesting.
They could join Wayne, and Rotterdam, and kinda make the morons brigade a little more interesting.
I doubt that. They all say the same things.
I don't think Bubba is a true wingnut. I detected good faith.
Remember, the wingnuts assert things they themselves don't believe.
Its interesting watching the left bend over backwards defending Taliban values.
I am glad Ignatieff has at least a little sense.
Rotterdam
Thanks for the scintillating conversation.
As for being "bent over"
Hell I guess you would know.
You spend most of your life in that position.
The issue is the treatment of woman.
Most are forced into bondage by wearing this.
It sends a message to would be immigrants. We are a country that will defend woman's rights.
If you wish to enslave your wife, we will stand up for her.
I'm not in total disagreement that the niqab can't be bad for women, but if we're going to have a rallying cry that we're fighting to free women, then why not also extend it to the Amish or women in that polygamist cult? If you think about it, things may be worse for these women since their communities are cut off from the rest of society. In the case of the niqab, we're trying to restrict rights of women who are trying to interact with the rest of society -- those seeking government service.
But, if we're going to "save women from themselves" via dress, could we also toss in such stupid things like high heel shoes and skinny jeans that can damage a women's health as much as a complete body veil damages a woman's health via low Vitamin D. (And if you've ever had to run in high heels or a long ankle-length skirt, you'd know how restrictive these things can be.)
The fundamental and simple question to all of this is: Aside from the obvious indecency laws, can the state dictate what women cannot wear?
For all of the concern about the state infringing on personal rights, I am surprised there is much less ire from the usual lot who decry all about other manners of state infringement.
I cannot understand why Canada seems to be a nation that does not include the oppourtunity to wear a certain religious dress. Since we cannot divine exactly the conditions under which each individual in that minority makes that choice to wear it, the musings about the unpleasant origins of its dress advance nothing as is typical of genetic fallacies. Otherwise, if there was such a preoccupation with the unsavoury origins of some cultural symbols, surely the wedding ring would have be duly replaced by now.
Post a Comment