That poll must be hitting a sore spot, as it has been weighted to the "Yes" side all day. Seems like the dipper and lib grunts do not always obey directives from above.

Have added my vote to the 'right' side. Thanx for the chance.

The article on this topic which appeared in the Globe had a lot of comments calling them on this attempt to create a division between "tolerant" English Canada and hardline Quebec--a division of opinion which obviously does not exist.

The pc crowd cannot lose with this one. If the No's win, then Quebec is racist and we all need more and more powerful HRC.
If the yes side wins, then all Canada is racist and we need more and more powerful HRC.

I agree with Rita. And the poll question could've ended simply ended with a question mark after civic life. The addition to it is irrelevant, considering that Quebec is already referenced at the beginning. The second part of it is designed to play on other preconceived biases, maybe anger that Quebec gets special treatment in confederation. Perhaps the Globe's failed attempt to bolster the "No" votes. They could've have been too confident going in.

Sorry, "couldn't" have been too confident going in. Blame it on the booze. ;-)

I don't care what people wear or do not wear from the neck down.

Covering of the face can be outlawed in Canada with my glad and profound support.

Vandals that were breaking store windows in the first week of the Olympics in Vancouver were wearing black face coverings, [balaclavas?]. Police and street video are at a loss.

Government clerks, elections overseers, druggists, airport security and many others can not do their job when the face is hidden.

The face covering ban has been adopted in parts of Europe. Can't wait for it to happen here.

Why do they have to wear it? Are they all seductresses or are we supposed to be so stunned by their beauty that we will lose control of our passions? To tell the truth, most of them do little for me personally. A pool in Surrey used to ban men when they went swimming and covered the windows with kraft paper. I told the pool people that I had no interest at looking at their hairy legged women, and that I was not particularly proud of my beer gut, but hey, they're not going to close the pool for my vanity.

Not only should we do what Quebec has done, but we need to let would be Muslim immigrants know in no uncertain terms that this woman (among other groups) hating ideology is not welcome here. We all know this is purely an expression of political Islamism.

larben: "Why do they have to wear it?"

Because men in the Arab world are not required to be responsible for their own behavior. Their failure to keep a lid on their own lust is entirely a woman's doing.

Tony G., I agree.

Considering this is a religion and culture that sees fit to carve women's clits off with a rusty butter knife and cauterize the lips closed all in order to maintain the woman's "purity" for her husband, wearing a veil sounds like the least of their problems. IMHO ALL immigrants should have no doubts that they adopt the Canadian way of life or they can leave. We have freedoms here they have never had and will not allow their women to have. Why even come to Canada if they want to maintain their subjugation of women?
On another note who the hell wants to be driving around when these women are driving right beside you (or AT you) and having to stare out a slit of bug netting in order to drive? Safety? Are they kidding?

My favourite article in today's Mope and Wail: Oral Sex Leads to Throat Cancer.

Killjoys.

We all gotta die of something.

The main reason for the Burka and face covering seems to escape everyone!!!!

It is so that men can wear it and move about freely transporting arms and explosives, while hiding from those who are trying to catch the criminal terrorists!!! Sodamn Insane was caught dressed in one.

Why do you think that the western forces in Afghanistan can't stop the terrorist bombings? This criminal system was set up 1400 years ago and every culture that has played by the rules trying to fight it has lost!!!

BAN THE BURKA!!!!

This poll tells me people are scared, but are afraid to say of whom? Even a little gesture against this would be self styled tsunami. Ignites a majority opinion towards even a feeble step to stem the social suicide of Canada's Democracy.
We have been buffaloed into not even mentioning our would be Conquerers or their beliefs. Least we end up in a roo' court. Danced on the head by our own Polity. While daily we see our own values decay through big government statism. The people perish without a vision. Whats this Nations? A patch work of nationalized multicultural nation states like the Natives?
JMO

Revnant Dream, you've hit the essential point: too many credulous Canadians are cowed into believing that a particular, insisted-upon narrative - a dated and very time-bound one, at this point - that has been insistently floated by the 'keepers' of Canadian identity is an accurate reflection of the views of Canadians in some universal sense, when in fact this "everybody knows" narrative is a bastardized, highly-partisan and guileful manipulation of people's fundamental decency.

If I walk into a bank wearing a balaclava, people will quite justifiably get nervous. Why? Might there be fundamental, universal and non-politicized reasons for that reaction?

Even if I'm not armed, and not intending to rob the bank, might there be something about my covered face - the social gesture itself - that properly makes people understand that something is wrong?

Looks like the globe and mail is going to have to do another story about all of Canada being intolerant to the intolerance of islam and its whacked out culture.

Sorry guys but I was in Vancouver for the olympics and have had my fill of officialdom. The problem wasn't with the cops who if I may say so, at least the Van City constables was great. However everyone else was drunk with power. Lord what a mess and guess who it was directed at. Well for the most part taxpayers. Hell I even had some burueacrat laugh at me for suggesting something so crass as decency and respect to those paying the bill, and mind you not me personally. Maybe critical thinking when dealing those folks actually paying for that dog and pony show known as the olympics would have been in order but not a chance.

Face covering cannot be allowed anywhere in our country. As usual, Quebec is leading the way.
How can anyone deal with a person with no face? How can they be identified? Someone with a face covering driving a car for instance, how would they be identified as the person who holds the license?

Who's intolerant here?

It's down to a security risk as well, no one can know what's under these mobile tents. It's pure insanity in this 21st century AD.

Thanks to PET's Multiculture and Charter of Rights, the magnets that have brought us to this point, intended or not.

If one can't walk down the street with the KK outfit on one shouldn't be allowed to wear a Burka in the public domain. Both are symbols of medieval cultural beliefs, one is a sign of racism and hate and the other is the Universial Sign of the sexual/slave bondage of women in Muslim nations. I hate the Burka, it's an symbol of Islmaic supremacism tarted up as a tenet of Islam.

I am shocked, appalled and devestated! I didn't get a Hat Tip for this story despite my posting about it in yesterday's Reader Tips!! (6.55AM)

Off to the CHRC with this one.I feel demeaned and excluded.

"Tolerance" for an intolerable practice, the wearing of the niqab, is the surrender-monkey position our lib-leftard overlords have demanded of us.

Well, enough, already.

Those of us who, for years, could see the writing on the wall and where this train was headed and have been objecting to their tolerant (sic), diverse (sic), multicultural (sic) vision of Canada have been depicted as narrow and bigoted neanderthals.

'Looks like we were right -- and that far from being neanderthals, we were on the watchtowers from where we could see what was coming our way. Of course, the Left hates us.

There's no way that Canadians should be asked to be "tolerant" about face coverings in public. No one, whatever their "culture" or "religion," should be exempt from transparency in the public square. If certain Muslims insist that their women's faces be covered, because THEY can't control their lustful impulses, they shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to Canada and we, certainly, shouldn't be asked to change our way of doing things to accommodate them.

Canada should have a law which says that NO ONE, male or female, wanders our streets or public places with their faces covered. 'No more bending over backwards to protect thinking from the dark ages under the guise of "multiculturalism."

And, please allow me to scratch the surface of this barbarous nonsense with a reminder of what the alliance of the Canadian Left and Islam is actually all about: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The enemy of both? Judeo-Christian values which are the foundation of all the freedoms we in the West have enjoyed for many centuries -- and which, BTW, have largely been excluded in Canada's official multiculturalism agenda. Go to any public school: You'll see Gaia honoured, Kwanza, Chinese New Year, etc., but no Ash Wednesday, Good Friday or Easter acknowledgment -- except, ironically, the four-day holiday (holy day). Remember, too, that it was Christian Europe (sadly, much depleted -- look at the state Europe's in today) that kept Islam from spreading.

EBD @ 3:56, of course you are right. We've all seen programs on TV or read articles about face recognition, even in very young infants. It is hardwired into the core of our sensory perception.

I think there are many questions about the burqa, the 'tent-dress' and the niqab, the face veil.

To assert that they are ordered by religious edict is ungrounded; there's no evidence of that in the Quran. Of course, that also brings up another issue, which is that Islam is less a religion than a societal and political ideology of the tribal 7th c.

So, if it's cultural, then one has to ask why it developed and its societal function.

To assert that it's psychological, i.e., grounded in a belief that all men are sexual fiends and the sight of any female...etc..is untenable for a people claiming to have a superior moral and conceptual mode of life.

So, my view is that it originated in a tribal population in the desert. It's a type of clothing against wind, sun and sand.
Given this material need, we then move on to another mode of behaviour in a tribal society in the desert - the warrior class of young men.

All tribal societies, particularly those with an economy based in migratory pastoralism, as were the people who moved into Islam in the 7th c, deal with their young unmarried men by moving them into a phase of warriors. This phase involves them patrolling the used and unused territory to maintain tribal control over the land base.

It keeps them away from the married women, up to a point, for the 'game' is for these men to sneak into the camps for 'illicit meetings'. Keeping the women veiled except within the protection of her husband and brothers, removes those women from this group.

This is a societal form of behaviour and dress adopted for a 7th c mode of tribal life. Abandoned as the economy changed, but since the last century, redeveloped as Islam fought to reject modernization, industrialism, democracy and to retain the 'pure tribalism'.

Now, both the burqa and niqab have moved out of their original material and societal origins and are now used to confine women to the family, maintain male dominance in the society and isolate the wearer from integration in the new society.

Therefore, one has to ask - why immigrate if you openly declare that you reject the basic societal modes of belief and behaviour of the new society?

OT. On the Mope and Fail's website there is (was) and article by Ian Brown (CBCer at one time) which basically scolds and ridicules any Canadian who doesn't worship Iggy and who supports Stephen Harper. I've been trying to post a comment, but it just won't work. Has anyone else here registered in order to comment on the Mope and Fail's articles and, if so, have you had problems?

I'm with BlackMamba!!!

From what I remember of my religious studies course, through the Qur’an and the Hadiths Islamic women are mandated to dress modestly in public. Specific details of what modest dress are not given, and it is purposefully left open to interpretation so that it can be adapted in a wide variety of situations; as one can imagine, modest dress for someone going grocery shopping is significantly different than modest dress for someone going swimming.

The burqa and niqab are interpretations of this mandate and are often forced onto women. While I fully support a new immigrant wearing what they’re accustomed to, wearing a face-veil when taking a language course is like wearing army boots while taking a swimming lesson; and removing the veil to allow your teacher to see your face to instruct you in proper pronunciation is not dressing immodestly.

Or to put it another way ...

I fully support the right for an educator or employer to be able to specify necessary dress requirements (within reason) and if the student or employee is unwilling or unable to meet these dress requirements they can go elsewhere.

It's now up to 80%, which the Globe will interpret as "a divided nation" implying a close vote.

See George Jonas' article in the Saturday National Post, "Voltaire's Ghost comes to Quebec" which deals with this very issue. In my mind it boils down to what Preston Manning alluded to all those years ago, namely that at a certain point a society/country has to define who it is and what it stands for. The Canada most of us have known and loved has been a secularized version of a culturally Judeo-Christian parliamentary democracy. And no, I don't have to accommodate the burqa or the niqab. I don't have to accommodate the niqab any more than I have to accommodate the nazis or the communists or the Ku Klux Klan or female circumcision or "honour" murders or child brides or any number of primitive, barbaric, tribal behaviours from any number of busted-arse countries that litter this planet and from which human beings are constantly fleeing. Countries have borders for a reason. The borders define not only geographic lines of demarcation, but legal, governmental and cultural ones as well.

For years there was a law on the books, which made it illegal to cover one's face in public. That's a good law. Because in order to engage in a civil society there needs be an element of accountability and responsibility for one's actions. A cornerstone of accountability is the ability to be identified and human beings are neurologically hard wired to recognize faces. To hide behind the anonymity of a face covering is to take special status in more ways than one. It's an abrogation of personal responsibility. It's the first thing anarchists do before they vandalize property or throw fire bombs.

And no, I don't have to ban all public display of religious symbols in order to ban the burqa.

I keep waiting for someone to point out the most hideous part of this controversy, but I guess that's expecting way to much from the modern day feminists. So here, I'll point it out, as a man with a young daughter:

Burqa clad women wear their portable tent prisions because they (self believe and/or cultural belief forced/indoctrinated on them by family; ie. read elder male family/relatives) believe that this is the MODEST thing to do in Islam. Our feminists twist themselves into knots to say that this is personal advocacy/activism well within an individual's rights even if the larger society doesn't like it.

BUT the corollary is that all other (non-mulsim sharia compliant) females that are not encased out of view of males are in fact sluts and whores. And as the Rape Imam in Austrialia pointed out such females are "uncovered meat" and are themselves to blamed if something 'bad' were to happen to them.

So let me ask all the female readers on this blog (I'm assuming virutally all here are currently free from the cotton bondage) how do you like being viewed by the Muslim community as UNMODEST; ie. read 'whores and sluts' who deserve to be raped? 'Cause when you stand beside a burqa clad submissive on the street, that is exactly the thought being screamed out to all around you; expecially muslim men.

You don't need to worry about their headress impairing the woman's ability to drive. That's just stupid.

After all, every devout person knows that according to the laws Mohammed, women are not permitted to drive. Problem solved.

I personally am totally opposed to women wearing black formless clothing from head to toe. I just about ran over a woman begging on the side of the road a couple of months ago in Saudi Arabia, thinking she was a bag of garbage.

Upon reflection, I realize that my error in judgement was to think that the Saudi's cared enough to actually put their garbage in a bag.

Black Mamba...I like your attitude!

Maybe people are starting to wake up to the fact that as we accommodate, the immigrants have to adapt less to our ways. You chose our culture. We did not recruit you to change ours to what you left behind.

Peppermint Panda,

I thought it was only the wives of Mohammad who were told specifically to cover themselves, even though all women are supposed to dress modestly? Ahh oh well, I haven't read the book, so I don't know. I'll note that lots of people who hate Jews and Christians never read our books, either, and misinterpret wildly.

Hah! I bet if I went out and killed some gay people or people wearing cotton/poly blends, I wouldn't be treated so kindly in court.

ET @ 9:08: "Therefore, one has to ask - why immigrate if you openly declare that you reject the basic societal modes of belief and behaviour of the new society?"

Ummmm. Aren't we telling them via the vehicle of the Multi-Culti cult that we do accept any and all non-Western aberrations?

Louise @ 9:17, I commented on an article in the Globe this morning, but, strangely, had to re-enter my I.D. and Pswd.

batb @ 8:51, absolutely correct and add to that the infiltration by the radical left into the educational system.

Thanks, DrD, for putting a defence of our "culturally Judeo-Christian parliamentary democracy" so succinctly.

Unfortunately, what the secular version has done, is give us a thin veneer, via Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, of the democratic freedoms we in Canada once enjoyed.

Trudeau's Charter has given us untrammeled rights without responsibilities and freedoms without accountabilty.

"Therefore, one has to ask - why immigrate if you openly declare that you reject the basic societal modes of belief and behaviour of the new society?"

I can answer that question. They are in the process of invading the western world in slow motion. They are doing that in order to set up an Islamic world.

HAVE YOU NOT BEEN LISTENING TO THEM?

Louise - yes, multiculturalism (cult) does indeed tell 'them' that we accept 'them' as Others.

However, in practice this means as long as they settle somewhere else and not in 'my' neighbourhood. So we get ghetto-enclaves, and we also get such immigration only in the largest cities. Quebec, which alone of the provinces, controls its own immigration, has the smallest ratio of 'visible minorities' in the country, and over 90% of them are in Montreal.

This view of multiculturalism is, as noted on this blog, viewed by many Canadians as simply about exotic foods and folk pavilions. The reality of the baggage of tribalism, denigration of women, superstition, rejection of independent economy, expectation that 'god' or the govt will support them, and their own hatred of 'other peoples' that they bring with them..is utterly ignored by our Liberal Latte Lites.

Multiculturalism is an ignorant and harmful policy.

I can't believe it, I agree with Quebec....does anything looks so stupid as a woman wearing this costume....Most women in the Arab/Muslim world do not wear this clown suit....it is not about Arab men lusting over them if they see their face, it's about the control of women by Muslim men and the intimiadation of Western socity.

Way to go Quebec....Globe and Mail get a life...you are out of step with English Canadians.

Looks like the Grope & Flail is prominently posting poll results their editorial board would describe as racist. They need to turn in their readers to the HRCs, write a bunch of mea culpa editorials, and maybe don sackcloth and ashes as a gesture of solidarity.

It is all about trust and our society is based upon trust. The Muslim society is not.

There has been a lot of reported research recently that suggests that our culture developed as it did because certain small groups that were culturally related existed in several different political societies and trusted each other. This led to the rise of lending and borrowing for economic development. The trust between groups also led to the rise of the rule of law – which was essentially enforcing the cultural norm within the larger group of like minded folks. We trusted the rest of the members of our society enough to let them lead us – but not without having to prove that by being re-elected after a period of time. Our society is based on openness and accountability.

We trust certain the rest of our social group to abide by certain behaviours. They will drive on the designated side of the street. They will not steal from us. They will not abuse other members of our society. Generally we set rules to regulate our behaviour within the society and where those rules are broken, society takes steps to correct and rehabilitate the transgressor. Those people who would cover their faces are able to break our rules and remain anonymous. They cannot be corrected or rehabilitated. And when a subgroup (tribe), removes some of its members from the responsibility of accountability, the downward slide begins. Our open society cannot survive a regression to the tribalism and oppression contained within the philosophy of the naqib.

"Some in English Canada". Some meaning maybe a dozen people? Hahaha!

In a leftwards-veering paper, no less.

Meaning, one might now surmise, that hiding one's face isn't a Canadian Value, eh...

And... Is it ok for folks to come here from elsewhere and tell us to change our ways because they don't like our ways? I mean, we wouldn't go to their countries of origin to tell them to change their ways because we don't like their ways... right?

Besides, the Left and the Big Media keep telling us, via those famous talking points, that we "shouldn't impose our ways onto other countries", including imposing freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights. So the Left and the Big Media would be hypocritical and useful-idiot to turn around and say that it's proper for folks from elsewhere to come here and decide the future of our country just because they want to remake it according to their own ideology.

Who do you think the "some in English Canada" are?

“They” would be the very same leftist who wrote that disingenuous crap.

Of course I'm referring to the Toronto media dirt bag liars. I get a laugh at how the gutless wonders try to hide behind, and amongst the rest of us when they spew their stupidity.

The Illustrious ET asks (rhetorically, obviously): "Therefore, one has to ask - why immigrate if you openly declare that you reject the basic societal modes of belief and behaviour of the new society?"

So you can soak the rubes for welfare and free housing with indoor plumbing, live in a beautiful new city -and- have no secret police watching your every move.

And still beat your three wives. Awesome! Who wouldn't go for that deal?

To add a counterpoint to banning all face coverings, let's not get crazy. I don't want to have to choose between a serious fine/prison time or getting frostbite and losing my ears. Let's try to look at the appropriateness of the response, so we don't end up getting bitten in the ass by it down the road.

Mike L. "it is not about Arab men lusting over them if they see their face, it's about the control of women by Muslim men and the intimiadation of Western socity."
==========================
No. It's not about Arab men lusting over them if they see their faces. It's about giving Arab men a ready made excuse for the crime of rape. It's her fault, not his. Remember the Australian Iman a few years ago who said as much? According to him, a scantily dressed woman (ie. without the veil and the whole schmeer) is like meat and men are just satisfying a natural hunger. I suppose in a way, he was right. When you keep your women in tents, and allow men to marry many several women at the same time, thus diminishing the range of available marriage partners for the losers, that will leave a lot of young men hungry (and ready to do violence to keep their minds off their crotches).

Another Calgary Marc, come on. That sort of distinction should be fairly easy to articulate into law.

This, like everything else, can be blamed on the Jews. Or the prime minister. Or the oil sands. The Glob will figure it out.

Marc, the Arab veil is not the same thing as a full-face snowmobile helmet or a Balaclava. No reasonable person would even attempt to claim they are.

So you're probably right, some logic chopping rules lawyer will try to mess with it. They aren't reasonable, and that's the problem we have in Canada these days. Cubicle dwelling rules lawyers have far too much power, and there are far too many of them.

But you know, this whole veil thing is just a symptom of a larger, worse problem. Thanks to the Trudeaupian Way, which was really put in place to punish Anglo Canada, power to decide what one will or will not tolerate has moved from the individual to government officials. Here we are getting all excited because GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS are -finally- pulling their thumbs out and doing something...

... something that 40 years ago my mum and dad and uncles and aunts would have done themselves without even thinking about it. Some weird lady shows up at the grocery store in a tent? Once or twice, no problem. All the time, then people would start suggesting to her that she loose the tent and join the party.

I don't view it as a good sign that we have to cheer for cubicle dwellers at long last growing a frickin' clue. Plus I don't like cheering for what is obviously Pur Lain racism instead of common sense "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sticking up for decent behavior.

/.rant./

"So, my view is that it originated in a tribal population in the desert. It's a type of clothing against wind, sun and sand."

The Byzantines didn't have that much sand to deal with, and as for wind and sun, no more than anyone else in the world.

Yes, that's right, you can blame the Byzantines for the head covering. Apparently, it was the style before the fall of the Eastern Empire. Not sure if it had to do with modesty, or was more of a fashion statement.

I gotta disagree with a lot of folk, then.

I support her freedom to wear whatever she wants. I support anyones freedom to do that, in fact.

What I don't support is the gyrations executed so as not to offend peoples religious beliefs/habits. This goes for face coverings on drivers licenses (or requesting one's picture NOT be taken), segregation of public facilities, and specific laws pertaining to "hate crimes".

Equality and freedom. I'd hope that these two things are important in Canada.

ET @ 10:42 AM, ethnic ghettos are hardly new, nor are they a product of Trudeauism, for those of you who might be chomping at the bit to blame him. Every major city in this country still has a China Town.

Back in the early 1900s, the City of Winnipeg had ethnic enclaves exclusively populated by, among others, Ukrainians or Jews. There are still French quarters in the metropolitan area of the City of Winnipeg. St. Boniface and St. Vital come to mind.

But all of those peoples do contribute to the economy and, for the most part, are peaceful. They appreciate and respect the freedoms Canada offers them. To a lessor extent, Edmonton also has ethnic enclaves. Heck, the prairies were settled with "ethnic enclaves". Their descendants participate as fully as anyone else in Canada's public, political and economic life and demonstrate an desire to put into practice our common values. And many of those people suffered very severe discrimination in the earlier years. Living in enclaves, per se, is not the problem.

Louise - I agree; ethnic enclaves spring up because newcomers feel comfortable living with people with whom they can communicate and interact. That has happened with any group, whether it be the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Jewish, Russian, Tamils..

That's not what I meant; I meant that the enclaves, as separate domains, are preferred ways of almost permanent immigrant settlement by those who are NOT members of that particular ethnic group.

What I blame Trudeau for is the Charter, with its specific clauses that privilege multicultural or identity group identification over the mainstream. That's Section 15,2 and 27.

So, if this comes to pass will the devout wearer of the hajib a) move to an Islamic country where they will "feel safe" or b) move to Toronto? Either works for me.

So, if this comes to pass will the devout wearer of the hajib a) move to an Islamic country where they will "feel safe" or b) move to Toronto? Either works for me.

There is one thing that the majority of Quebeckers do very consistently and that is stand up for their culture. They could care less about what "some in English Canada" think. They will act to protect their version of the French culture.

Too bad that the Anglo European part of the ROC are largely too wimpy to do the same. The results of this G&M poll may just signal a strengthening of back-bone. I'm hopeful, but, not expectant.

All we really need to point out is that most women of Islamic faith do not wear burkas or niqabs or whatever they are called. So a legal requirement in Canada that women must bare their faces for Drivers License photos, to use a credit card at the Bay, to get on an airplane or to participate effectively in a classroom, is not a fundamental violation of their religion. That's the argument that has been used to great effect to limit the exposure of Christianity in public.

Another Calgary Marc
While I lack ET's command of the language....much like Andy Ronney stating that because he thinks Homosexuality is wrong ....that that doesn't make him a bad person....it means he has an opinion.

This why the US Constitution's first Amendment addressed freedom of speach/expression and the Second Ammendment addressed the right to keep and bear arms.

It is not accident the framers of that Constitution placed such importance upon those concepts and lefties obsessively opose them.

With the adoption of tinted windows on vehicles, regulations dictated that the window tint had to enable "identification of the driver, from front and side, in normal daylight...4 LUX.

It is an offence under the Canadian Criminal Code to wear a disguise.

In practice wearing a mask, except under very specific circumstances---such as a halloween party, is instinctively interpreted as criminal intent.

As was already noted...wearing a balaclava in a bank is not a clever enterprise....while doing so on a motor-sled or sky hill is a never-ya-mind.

It is worthy to note an incident on the A-stan-Pakistan border. A retreating "insurgent" raiding party was intercepted by helo-gunships and caught them doning burkas.....

It all boils down to the need to subscribe to the cultural norms of the society you move to - unless the society you are moving to wants to subscribe to yours.

And how do you know if you or they have to change if you don't push up against the boundaries.

What I as a member of the society being moved into need to be aware of is what the immigrants desired changes to my society are, and then I need to decide whether I am ok with that or not.

I for one am ok with where our current societal norms are at on many things - including the need to have your face visible in public (except during a raging blizzard).

Dear Badger,

This debate has precious little to do with freedoms to wear whatever a person wants. I usually put my hair into a headscarf when I go out into the wind and rain instead of risking it with a tuque (of course, I doubt any men involved in this debate are aware of the supreme usefulness of such a covering). But, only my hair is covered. Notice how all the debates are over the face-covering veils, not the more reasonable headscarves. We can distill this down to a debate over the patch of fabric over a person's face and nothing more.

The debate must further boil down to whether it is acceptable to cover one's face and still demand government services.

The debate has nothing to do with freedoms or religious tolerance. Instead, it is simply placed as a debate over freedom or religion tolerance to make us tread very carefully, even though religious tolerance must always stop short at our laws.

Equality and freedom? Buzz words. My grandfather and his generation killed and died for these things. They aren't "rights". If a right is something inalienable, and if rights (to free speech, or the right to abortions or the right to education and clean drinking water) can be taken away by the government, then they aren't actually rights, because they are indeed alienable.

There is no such right to wear whatever the heck you want, and your freedom to wear what you want must function within that scope of rights and law. A "right" involves what other people allow me to do, and a freedom is something that I can do myself. I need other people to maintain my rights, but I can exercise my freedoms whenever I want. I'm free to wear a gimp mask at home if I so please, but does that mean I have a right to wear one when I get bloodwork done?

It follows that I have the God-given freedom to commit murder, and that I have the freedom to tear the curtains off of my windows and go out wearing them like a potato sack. But, once these freedoms start affecting the rights of others, we run into problems. My freedom to kill (we do have free will, after all) infringes on the right which Canada has given my victim to not be murdered. My freedom to wear a burka or niqab infringes on the the bank teller I'm dealing with, it infringes on the ability of the French-second-language teacher who must see my face to get me to pronounce words correctly (surely it is reasonable to force immigrants to learn one of two official languages), it infringes on other Canadians to know that I am indeed who I say I am when I go to vote. We have doled out the right to vote, and we're allowed to demand to know for sure, by seeing the face of the voter, if the person who is voting is the one who we gave the vote to in the first place.

Therefore, the freedom to cover your face is no longer a freedom when it wreaks such havoc on government-granted rights.

(and no, I hate Mill. Mill was wrong. Don't confuse me with Mill or any such kind of poorly planned Libertarianism!)

Safety Forced, I agree with what you have said about personal freedoms impinging upon other people, as well as when they come into conflict with laws.

With regard to face coverings, that's a red herring. If the bank teller/cop/phlebotomist/gun shop owner needs to see one's face to identify their customer, they should make that request. The person can then take off their motorcycle helmet, gimp mask, scarf because it's friggin cold out, niquab, or whatever. If the person refuses to remove their face covering, the business should be within its rights to refuse to complete service, and where it pertains to questioning by police, the "customer" may then be subject to arrest and all the joys that may entail.

Legislating against a specific type of face covering is silly.

'Civic life' can mean anything. As such, voting yes is an invitation for more government meddling in people's lives. Just vote no.

It has nothing to do with free will. Let us make that clear now. If a woman doesn't wear some kind of covering, one can imagine what would happen to her (RE: Aqsa Pervez). Islamic coverings of any sort are not just trappings of chauvinist tribal culture but a message to the West: "we thumb our noses to you and your culture". If we pride ourselves in fostering a culture that allows free expression and human rights to all, a clear message to that effect would be to ban these coverings outright.

Ideally one could wear what they wanted but far too many muslims have already been admitted into Canada. The solution is to forbid any further muslim immigration but that is unlikely to happen and, unfortunately, the only way of dealing with the situation is through legislation which reinforces Canadian norms. What I'm curious about is why feminists don't get upset over the treatment of Canadian women who visit Saudi Arabia where they are more or less confined to small areas and unable to go out in public uncovered.

Having had to deal with tent covered women in walkin clinics, it is a most disconcerting situation. I get to see their eyes but am missing a huge amount of non-verbal information that one gets from observing facial muscle movements. They're always accompanied by their husbands and I get the strong feeling that they don't want them touched; just write a prescription to fix them and if they need to be touched we'll find a female doctor. Fortunately none of these women have thus far had any serious problems but one of these days I'll have to figure out how to do tent removal in order to examine them.

Badger,

First off I can't believe you read that! I didn't realize I had churned out such a behemoth until afterward!

Though continuing on the vein of whether it is right or even possible to legislate against face coverings, I'll point out that it's acceptable to cover private regions, and public nudity is illegal.

(As a fun side-note, places in the Maghreb have an odd view of what private parts are. As a belly dancer myself, I know that since about 1970s it's been illegal to show your navel since it's a 'bodily orifice'. In the 50s, the dancers had much more freedom to wear whatever they wanted. Youtube "Tahia Carioca", or "Samia Gamal" for 50s outfits and "Suheir Zaki" for 1970s outfits if you want. The dance is an interesting way to illustrate if you're telling a person about how women's rights have slid backwards there. It's also illegal to have hairy armpits if you're dancing... but that might just be for good taste's sake!)

Anyway, it's not unreasonable to legislate covering at least some parts of a person's body. So again, the question is whether it's reasonable to request to be allowed to continually see a person's face. I wish I knew more about law -- it might be considered a 'reasonable accommodation' if you've just walked inside from one of our balmy country's Februarys, but is it reasonable for a person to continue to keep their masks on?

When women have their passport photos taken, we're supposed to either not wear makeup or have only the thinnest layer of transparent powder on, because even the shading that can be accomplished can be an issue of national security.

So, not only is it a-okay draft laws concerning body coverings, but it is fine and dandy to draft laws specifically about facial alterations in the government sphere. But, if a privately owned store requests a person to remove their face covering to get anything from a gun to a cup of coffee, do they really have that right? In the case of guns, I would say that the law is on their side because of the identification issue. But a coffee-shop owner would never have that ability.

The level of terror associated with not seeing the person's face, though, varies. Ordering a coffee, or in a dark alleyway -- both are in the public space, right? It really does boil down into a safety issue. What did the attacker look like? I don't know, office, they were wearing a niqab!

There is no reason to wear a face covering unless you're the Elephant Man and you'll scare small children on the account of your horrid deformity. There is no religious requirement for it. It obscures identification, which is a safety issue.

I figure if cops are allowed to request protesters to remove their masks, then the safety issue really is a factor. The only reason to wear a mask in public is if it's Halloween or during some kind of performance where a mask is needed, in Kabuki or otherwise.

Another side note: the only way a dancer can show her navel in Egyptian performances is if she can prove that it's an historical representation, or a period piece, which allows her to bypass the regulation.

I'm with BlackMamba!!!

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at March 21, 2010 9:29 AM”

@ Kathy Shaidle, your response now begs the question, is it better to give than receive? What is your position on the matter?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now getting to a slightly more serious take on the topic, if there was a religion, whose practice included the custom of having one gender of the species walk around with a collar and lead by a leash, would it be considered more obnoxious than the practice of wearing of a burka? They are both signs of subservience, yet I think if I started a religion that had the dog collar practise, even the lefties would be after me, unless it was the men being lead of course. The only thing I don’t have on my side is the history of the practice, as the burka has with Islam. But as was said, those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. So the intolerance within Islam is just the perpetuation of one person’s view of women, carried out for centuries. The more orthodox a religion, by definition, will not recognize flaws within itself, nor adjust to the times.
(Btw, it is problems like that within organized religion which has resulted in me becoming an atheist.)

That "some in English Canada" alluded to in the poll question likely attend mosques.

What is WITH the Globe and Mail and CTV poll question writers?

"They are in the process of invading the western world in slow motion. They are doing that in order to set up an Islamic world.

HAVE YOU NOT BEEN LISTENING TO THEM?"

Right on the pin, Abe Froman.
Look what infiltration has wrought on so many fronts.

The poll is still up, and it is at 80/20 now.

chutzpahticular: "What is WITH the Globe and Mail and CTV poll question writers?"

Could they be the same people? You know the Canadian media: as incestuous as Kentucky hillbillies.

just came here now for first time this w/e and do not have time to read all comments so apologies in advance for any duplication.

I spend a lot of my time overseas and have just returned from 3.5 months in Malaysia and Australia.

I have been travelling to Malaysia for about 20 years now. When I first went there in 1990 when the Malay (mainly Moslem) population was 60%, it was quite rare to see women wearing even the hijab (head scarf).

20 years later after a relentless process of islamic indoctrination, the Malay population has increased to 70% (a lot of Malaysian Chinese, who create the wealth have moved to Australia and elsewhere), 100% of muslim womin wear, at least, the hijab. 1 or 2% wear the niqab, which I find very creepy (the niqab, that is).

My question is - if it's the woman's choice, why weren't they doing it 20 years ago??

chutzpahticular,

What a surprise. I picked up on Abe Froman's point. Scrolled down here to the end and there you are noting the same.

[Quote]
They are in the process of invading the western world in slow motion. They are doing that in order to set up an Islamic world.

HAVE YOU NOT BEEN LISTENING TO THEM?
[/Quote]

How it works:= Flow into the country and have large families of twelve or so. Eventually numbers allow you to elect MPs for your area. [enclave] like Surrey or Delta.

Catholics, please remain calm, but this was the same practice quietly promoted in Quebec mainly during the 30s, 40s, and 50s.

Today, concentrations of East Indians in Surrey have elected people like Diwall, Dosange and others.

Try not to react too strongly. Just an observation of fact.

I have seen Lebonese militant hijabbed women in online video stating they will change the voting balance in Northern Israel this way.

Tony G., the godfather of al Qaeda observed in the fifties, a relatively idyllic decade, that America was "decadent"...Watch the actions of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; its leaders are patient men.

ET @ 10:42 a.m.: "The reality of the baggage of tribalism, denigration of women, superstition, rejection of independent economy, expectation that 'god' or the govt will support them ..."

At least if 'god' supports them, it doesn't involve my hard-earned tax dollars.

Whereas, when immigrants expect government support for themselves, their two or three wives, and their many children, that's where we need to draw the line. Far too many recent immigrants -- unlike the hardworking Europeans who populated the prairies in the last century and the Chinese folks who inhabit the many Chinatowns across Canada -- have all of their expenses paid via government handouts, while the rest of us hard-working stiffs pay all of our own housing, medical, and dental bills PLUS those of the new-we-know-how-to-exploit-our-visible-minority-status-immigrants.

Government handouts come from the ROC's pockets -- originally, so that the Liberal$, who opened the immigration floodgates into Canada, could stockpile the grateful votes of the new-all-expenses-paid immigrants on the backs of the rest of us.

And, yes, we can blame Trudeau's leftist, anti-British, anti-Christian agenda (he wasn't a great Catholic) for much of this multiculturalism mess Canadians are having to deal with now and his Charter of Rights and Freedoms which gives groups rights while downgrading individual rights, something that plays right into the hands of visible minority immigrants who are using our Charter "rights" in order to force their agenda on us -- even though they're the newcomers.

I don't think we'd get very far in their countries if we tried to get them to do things our way -- so why this bending over backwards to accommodate them here, especially when it's creating havoc?

batb wrote: "Could they be the same people? You know the Canadian media: as incestuous as Kentucky hillbillies."

lol. Quite likely. I see gossip girl Jane Taber on CTV AND the Globe and Mail.

I seldom read the Globe and Mail, but peeked into yesterday's issue out of boredom at work. I must have been feeling masochistic because I stopped to read Jane Tabor's column entitled "Rookie MP shooting for a royal commission on hockey violence."
Now, personally I wish there was less fighting and more rough and ready hockey in the NHL, but this seems a bit much. Apparently a commission made up of proles isn't good enough for Glen Thibeault, NDP member for Sudbury. He says, and I quote: Let's bring in health; let's bring in law enforcement, let's talk about some of the social trends, some of the social consequences that may be peeking into a kid's life ... such as domestic violence.
I guess it might take a Royal Commission to bring in daily journals written by our minor hockey kids, telling that dad shouted at mom, or mom left a light on in the basement. or mom told dad to shut his big mouth ... you know, stuff like that. Jane seemed very excited and supportive of a Royal Commission on hockey violence.

larben: "Jane [Taber] seemed very excited and supportive of a Royal Commission on hockey violence."

'Probably 'cause people she knows will be employed by the Commission for lotsa bucks.

The media and government bureaucracy like to keep it all in the family.

Yes the last few words in that question are definitely neutral.

Very encouraging result. Almost begins to make me think I should re-consider my perception of the average Grope & Flail reader.

In any event, all it will take to end the discussion and take the result to 99.9999% is for a niqab clad suicide bomber to blow a load in the Eaton's?? (can't remember what they call it now) Centre in downtown Hogtown. Personally think this is just a matter of When? Not If?

On the subject of face coverings, try walking into a bank in Vancouver with sunglasses and a ball cap. I did that and was summarily told to remove them. A burka or its derivatives are much more concealing! Gee, two posts from me on the same day...

Hey, Aviator, flying high, eh?!

safety first....of course, I doubt any men involved in this debate are aware of the supreme usefulness of such a covering).
Be very very afraid.As part of a ground SAR team(all men) we learned very quickly that simple nylons worn under combats provided superior cover against the cold(-40 ambient) compared to long johns.Maybe this is why our fighting forces don't hand them out anymore?

Very encouraging result. Almost begins to make me think I should re-consider my perception of the average Grope & Flail reader.

Indeed. Those 12,117 yes votes didn't all come from this site. You have to believe that even the most bubblebound among us (and that means Globe and Mail/CBC consumers) are beginning to get a clue.

There goes my baclava, my snowmobile and motorcylce helmets! And now I can't raise bees as a hobby! Morons!

Would this islamoagitator and theofascist provocateur not have had to show her face and picture ID when entering this country?

Just wondering how that little episode went.

Now that the poll is over, has anyone else noticed that the poll is not visible in the past polls section? I guess the poll did not exactly go the way they were hoping.

Yes, it's gone, history gets rewritten once again, it didn't happen.

Except there's that annoying screen capture on SDA ...

Yes, it's gone, history gets rewritten once again, it didn't happen.

Except there's that annoying screen capture on SDA ...

Da Wilfe, yes I noticed that too this morning. And we always have been at war with Oceana, haven't we?

I've always said I admire Quebecers for there desire for self determination. I just don't want it on my dime.

"Intolerance will not be tolerated!" - South Park

Me too, Indiana Gomez.

Pareto principle, 80% of stupid is owned by 20% of the population.

TC, I'm late to this party but have been following the slow creep of extreme Islam around the western world. As a woman who loves to drive a stick, the idea of wearing a burkha is rediculous. Within the larger context of my country and its quickly eroding culture, it's outrageous. Across the river in Nebraska some islamics were trading in child brides for God's sake and were offended that they would be tried under the law of the land.

On another note, it seems interesting to me that Quebec would be the source of this ban. I thought the Quebecois were the crazed left wingers and the anglos were the voice of reason. We had some close French Canadian friends who startled me with their liberalism, and I'd been living in San Francisco for 13 years. The friendship ultimately foundered on the rocks of South Africa and the reality behind apartheid. Never let the facts get in the way of a good friendship.

Yes, Safety Forced, I read your whole post. I enjoyed it.

Really, my beef is with "who decides what's appropriate"? Today, it's the niquab, which isn't a religious requirement, anyway. Tomorrow, what? Harley riders are not allowed to wear scarves over their lower faces because they need to be identified as Hells Angels, or just citizens with harleys? And the day after, as Aviator indicates, is it dark glasses and ball caps?

No, I don't think any of these things needs laws developed pertaining to them.

With regard to doctors treating "tent women", well, the "tent women" are not getting the best care they can, due to their choice. Sucks for them. (by the way, the subjugation of women by their husbands, brothers, fathers, etc. is not something I condone. I would much rather more resources be devoted to support of women in general than in making more silly laws)

Finally, regarding immigration, I would welcome muslims and everyone else to this country because they get to be exposed to a better way of doing things. I expect that by the 2nd or 3rd generation, their children/grandchildren will be as Canadian as you or I! (speaking as a 2nd generation Canadian grandson of immigrants myself)

Badger, the second and third generation islamics in France who continue to burn cars and rape Christian and secular women might argue with you.

Second = Omar Karbom Canada, and the British Tube bombers 7/11, who BTW dressed in women's full cover naquibs to escape.

Mr. Mazzuchelli, you refer to "the slow creep of extreme Islam". Is that a reference to Syed Soharwardy?