I live in Minneapolis so I see a few traditional folks in the Somali community that wear the niqab from time to time but I don’t see the reason for the fuss. At worse, I don’t know if the person is making funny faces at me. And I say this as someone who came from a very white state and town before moving to Minneapolis. Anyone who freaks out over face coverings probably needs a therapist (but we all know the real reason, so I don’t think I need to expand on it).
6 Likes
That is an interesting argument, but I do not think it holds true. Quite on the contrary, I see that these laws in France seemed to decrease the tension between the non-muslim European population and the muslim one. I also cited an historic video earlier on to explain that head cover in Egypt (but also in other middle east countries) was not customary attire but was pushed by the Muslim brotherhood as part of their political agenda. I also have first hand report from French women who welcomed the law as it allow them to escape harassment.
What I said is that these women are already used as a playing piece in an international game by salafist organisations. The law is trying to avoid that, while balancing the interest of the public at large with religious practice. They can still wear a head scarf and they can still ride the bus.
Unfortunately I can’t document this stat, but I do find it believable: in an online discussion, someone claimed there are approximately 90 fully veiled women living in Quebec (population: 8.2 million), presumably the vast majority in Montreal. I live in a fairly diverse part of said city, with quite a few Muslims around, and can recall seeing precisely one fully veiled woman in the last year or two. But, that’s just my anecdote and I don’t get out enough, so take it for what little it’s worth. But, even if the number is off by an order of magnitude and there are 900, it’s still a very small minority.
Some might take the small number of people directly affected as an excuse to say “oh well then, so few people are affected, why kick up a fuss?”
I rather see it as pretty solid evidence that this provision of the law is grandstanding designed to appeal to xenophobes and bigots, many of whom probably have never seen even one veiled woman.
I agree with those who argue that policing women’s attire is not an effective way to free women from their oppression.
And as a practical matter, it’s just wrong to turn bus drivers into de facto burqa police. They have a hard enough job without having to get into that shit. Glad that the two major mayoral candidates have spoken out against the law, or at least this particular aspect of it.
3 Likes
The choice of the word “crusade” is entirely yours. As to the fight against fundamentalists, I don’t think we are doing too bad. At least we managed to not elect a fanatic, right-wing populist with a toupee. Twice.
What if your face is cold? I mean, it’s friggin QUEBEC. The coldest I’ve ever been is in Quebec city. It wasn’t even that cold, maybe 25F. But the m o i s t, cold wind off the St. Lawrence made everything bone-chillingly bitter.
I see that differently. If they wanted to appeal to xenophobes and bigots, they would prohibit all head cover, wouldn’t they?
The Quebec law is not solely designed about busses, yet people in this thread concentrate on that single aspect.
I would think that you only need to uncover your face while working as a public servant (usually inside) and using public services (also usually inside). When riding a bus, one would just need to remove the protection inside the (heated) bus.
That’s because it’s the most obviously unjust aspect of it. We’re talking about denying some of our society’s most marginalized people access to public transportation (or giving them an ultimatum to force them to change their ways if they want to use it). And turning bus drivers into burqa police, which by all accounts they do not want – I would not be surprised if most of them simply refuse.
I don’t know if you’ve ever been here, but in the winter the temperature can reach -30C, and -20 is not uncommon. The wind will freeze your face off, so almost anyone who ventures outside for more than a couple of minutes will cover their face. In January and February, buses are jam-packed with people whose faces are covered, or at least were covered when they passed the driver on their way in.
So now we’re going to tell one small minority to find some other way to travel, while everyone else walks around with a covered face.
That’s why public transportation is such a big part of this. But denying them other public services unless they change their attire is almost as absurd and just as unlikely to make any sort of meaningful dent in fundamentalism.
I don’t like the veil and I wish nobody wore it, but it’s not my call and it’s not the government’s either.
7 Likes
I hope they would just go meh, get on, show me your card, ok. Seems likely. What skin in the game do bus drivers have? None. Laws like this that shift responsibility onto workers are completely off-base, not to mention the blatant racism.
What I meant is that the bus is a strawman argument: take as an example the most ridiculous part of a law, which is not yet passed and is still under discussion. I also think that nobody in their right mind would wear a burqa by -30C (as the clothing is designed for the heat of middle east) and that, should bus passengers need to cover their face because of the extreme cold, no-one in Canada would require them to not do so.
I think this is the typical Internet syndrome of having your buttons pushed. We have a law, which may or may not be a good idea. Then, people on Internet forums go and seek the most absurd situation to demonstrate that other people whom they never met and know nothing about are unjustly repressed. In truth, Quebec is trying to pass a law which prohibits the most extreme and debilitating form of attire, not a law about riding busses in winter.
The law was passed yesterday. It is the law.
Public transportation, in any season, is probably the single most commonly used public service. For several months of the year, millions of people use it with their face covered. Some of them are now forbidden to do so on religious grounds.
No, it is not intended to be a law about riding busses, but it is in fact one, however inadvertently.
(And I honestly have no idea what veiled women do about winter clothing, but let’s ask which assumption makes more sense: that they wear exactly the same clothing as they would if they lived in Saudi Arabia; or there are variations on the clothing worn in countries that have both winter and burqas, such as Afghanistan.)
And how is this law going to achieve anything productive? You have a marginalized group – perhaps fewer than 100 people – who are now told that their options are: dress differently or stay home.
How is this going to help them?
How is this going to make this a better, safer society?
My answer to both: it isn’t.
8 Likes
Except they seem to recognize that specifically banning only burqas would in fact be inappropriately discriminatory, so they’re instead banning “any face covering”, which would include a whole lot of things that aren’t burqas (like scarves and balaclavas and Halloween costumes and t-shirt ninjas). Now, what do you think the odds are that this sort of law will be enforced equitably as written, as opposed to being used to crack down specifically on Muslim women’s clothing? If banning burqas were as obvious and uncontroversial as you seem to think it is, why all the obfuscation and water-muddying? Why introduce the possibility that motorcyclists and cold pedestrians will get stopped by the police for wearing something that covers their face, unless the people writing the law realized that what they were trying to do was inappropriate? They’re trying to give it a fig leaf of respectability by saying “no no, this is about anyone covering their face for any reason”, when that argument is so flagrantly transparent that even you aren’t buying it.
7 Likes
It can be indeed quite cold in Kabul (just checked), so indeed there must be some form of burqa designed for cold climates. I had not thought of that, as the ones I saw were always made of relatively light fabric.
This being said, the article clearly says that the law forbids all kind of face coverings (not just religious ones), so the argument about bus users in winter does not quite make sense.
My answer to this, and I would not defend the law otherwise, is that it actually helps the women who do not want to wear the most extreme forms of religious attire to escape the pressure of their family and neighbours.
What about the women who wear burqas of their own free will and find religious value and importance in them?
8 Likes
That’s kind of like saying we should consider outlawing bikini tops at beaches to help women escape the pressure of family and neighbors who demand they cover their chests in public. We don’t do anyone any favors by taking away their choice of what to wear.
4 Likes
That us where we do not agree. If Quebec is like France, the law will also be enforced for things which are not burqas, and I am fine with that. Quebec might indeed find out that the law is not applicable in winter and jurisprudence will take the particulars of the season into account.
Because I am French, I am considering the law in the context of what happened in France, where similar laws were passed much earlier. They had consequences for Christian symbols in public settings, some of which silly. But it triggered a reflection on what a secular state or liberty of religion means in a modern world, reflection which is still ongoing today.
I don’t see any in this thread.
You are obviously taking an example you find absurd. But, in truth, you never asked women whether they would actually prefer not to have to wear a chest cover to swim and not have men stare at their breasts. I actually know some who found that a much better way to enjoy bathing when visiting the beaches of northern European countries, where it is not a problem.
The important part here is: “not have men stare at their breasts”. If men stare at their breast, they do not have the choice of what to wear. Yet you assumed they do.
“extreme and debilitating” - how is a face covering extreme and debilitating?
I work at a public university in Ontario, and there are female students here in burkhas, in class, talking and presenting, and taking the subway. They don’t seem debilitated or hindered in any way. But you know what will hinder them and take away their freedom? Not letting them take the bus.
7 Likes
I don’t think women should HAVE to cover their chests. I think they should be ALLOWED to cover their chests. Same goes for burqas and other face coverings. You can’t liberate women by writing laws dictating what they are and aren’t allowed to wear.
9 Likes
