26 January 2010

For... and Against

The Socialist opposition has come out officially against a ban, saying it would be difficult to enforce. It says it is opposed to full veils in principle, but some members have expressed fears about any ruling that could stigmatise Muslim women.
You gotta cover all your bases.

**********

RELATED: Maybe proroguing isn't...

...their biggest problem...
-- OTTAWA -- A Liberal MP says he believes the federal government should investigate whether the pieing of Fisheries Minister Gail Shea by a woman opposed to the seal hunt constitutes an act of terrorism.

The animal-rights group PETA later took responsibility for the incident.
Seriously?

That's what's on the Liberal Party's to-do list?

Good grief.


10 comments:

langmann said...

You know, I'm not for laws that tell people how to behave if it is causing no harm on anyone else. We have a big problem in this country with HRCs that seen to think they can tell us all what we can say.

These Burkas I cannot understand. I get the sense that it is male imposed domination on females, which is a good reason to ban them. However if some women think it is their religious devotion, just like some habits of nuns or other Christian denominations than the government should stay out.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"langmann says... if some women think it is their religious devotion"

i'm no fan of organised religion... but i also don't believe in laws designed to protect me from myself.

that being said... it'll be interesting to see how people feel about this when the first female suicide bomber (using a burka for concealment) blows 50 innocent bystanders into the great hereafter.

*

Anon1152 said...

From the BBC article you link to: "The interior ministry says just 1,900 women in France wear the full veils." France is a country of well over 60 million people. Rounding down to 60 million... that means that there has been all sorts of media attention, and government energy, poured into an issue that ostensibly affects .003% of the population.

I think the security concern is bogus. Suicide bombers have done just fine without Burka's/Niqabs/etc. If you were to ban the full veil out of fear that the wearer has dynamite strapped to their chest... you might as well ban most forms of clothing. There are many ways to alter one's appearance or conceal one's identity. And in France, the burka or niqab isn't exactly something that helps one "blend in."

The only plausible rationale that I can see would be, to paraphrase Neo, to protect people from themselves. But... doesn't the policy seem self-contradictory? We are offended by the veil because it is an affront to the equality of women; women should not be told what they can and cannot wear... and to prove this... we are going to tell women what they can and cannot wear....

JA Goneaux said...

Exactly how do you "stigmatize" someone who is deliberately standing out from the crowd anyway? Isnt' that like "stigmatizing" someone with a two foot pink Mohawk?

By all means, wear what you want to wear, but don't ask me NOT to have an opinion on it. So, no laws against, or for them, but neither should there be laws against laughing at them either...

BTW, yes, charge the PETAbot with terrorism, for that's what it was. What, we couldn't get anyone in all of Canada to pull the pie trigger?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"jag says... Isn't that like "stigmatizing" someone with a two foot pink Mohawk?"

hey... if people want to run around screaming "look at me, look at me"... that's their choice.

*

"anon1152 says... I think the security concern is bogus."

well... it's already happened in the middle east. there's also incidents of male terrorists using burkas to both infiltrate & escape. i guess it's "not real" until it happens over here.

you know... like the "toronto 18".

*

Anon1152 said...

Hm. Perhaps I should have been more specific in my "Bogus" sentence. I didn't mean that it Burka's can't or won't be used by suicide bombers, only that such bombings and do happen without them. I don't think that security concerns genuinely motivate the government's plan to restrict the burka.

*

As for the Toronto 18... Didn't that number drop substantially? And though I'm in favour of arresting people who are planning to decapitate the PM, blow things up, etc, I'm a bit disturbed by the fact that the Crown's star witness infiltrated the group, and paid over 4 million dollars by the police. How much do the actual police officers get paid?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100111/canada/canada_attacks_justice_trial

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 says... I'm a bit disturbed by the fact that the Crown's star witness infiltrated the group"

ah... yet another stellar example of where we ideologically part ways.

call me wacky... i'm more than a little bit disturbed that these wannabe jihadis were planning on detonating a fertilizer bomb in downtown toronto that was three times the size of the one timothy mcveigh used on the murrah federal building in oklahoma.

yup... rope... tree... a lasting vignette for the next asshole who even thinks about it.

*

Anon1152 said...

OK. I'll call you wacky. But not for the reasons you suggest. You quoted only part of my sentence. The first part of the sentence I'm sure you could agree with. I'm in favour of arresting such people.I could add that I'm in favour of infiltrating terrorist groups, punishment, etc.

But if my quote wasn't truncated, it would be: "I'm a bit disturbed by the fact that the Crown's star witness infiltrated the group, and [was] paid over 4 million dollars by the police."

Maybe everything is legitimate. And I am more concerned about things blowing up. But on the face of it, the 4 million is... suspicious. Imagine if a witness for the defense in a run-of-the-mill-non-terrorist-trial was paid 4 million dollars... And don't we all know people who would say anything for a fraction of that amount?

Either way, I'm not sure that's an ideological difference. Though it is a difference that makes me look like the cynical distrustful one...

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 says... the Crown's star witness infiltrated the group, and [was] paid over 4 million dollars by the police"

well... strictly speaking i'm guessing the 4 mil came from premier mcslippery's attorney-general.

and if these holy warriors had managed to touch off a three metric tonne fertilizer bomb... the four million dollars wouldn't even have paid for the medical care & funerals of the thousands of people maimed & killed.

sorry... it was well worth it... even if the feeble-minded liberal government couldn't put them all in jail for life.

*

langmann said...

The infiltrator couldn't fake recorded discussions, and attempt to buy the fertilizer...

4 million well spent. They should do more of it.

As to these terrorists, I have no sympathy for them. What a bunch of suckers we are.