Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Celine Dion Supports the BAN on Hijabs!

For me, it’s not about the veil—it’s beyond that. I’m not against what people wear but if you go to the hospital, and you are in Quebec and we have embraced you and opened our country for you to live in a better world, you have to adapt to our rules. If the doctor is a boy or a girl, you’re gonna see the doctor that [is] sent to [treat] you. You can’t just say, “My religion doesn’t permit me to see a woman or a male doctor.” That’s the problem for me. If I’m going to see a doctor and he is gay, I’m not going to have a problem with that. It should not be an issue.

It’s just that these women who practise the things they believe in have to adapt to our country. They have to not change our laws. Because you have a lot of Anglican or veiled women in a school—you can’t just take off the [Catholic] cross from the walls, or take down Christmas trees. If I go live in their country and have to be veiled, I will.

by Anonymousreply 12401/26/2014

anybody?

by Anonymousreply 110/30/2013

bump

by Anonymousreply 210/31/2013

I don't believe it's a ban on hijab which is a head scarf. Isn't it a ban on face-covering veils and burkas?

by Anonymousreply 310/31/2013

Hooray for Celine. She supports freedom and equality. And is not a coward!

by Anonymousreply 410/31/2013

She speaks common sense.

by Anonymousreply 510/31/2013

I support the ban too. The men never have to wear them so why should the women? It must suck to be a beautiful woman born into an ultra conservative Muslim family, even worse in an ultra conservative Muslim country.

by Anonymousreply 610/31/2013

Ok, now I have to like Celine. Ok, fine.

by Anonymousreply 710/31/2013

Good for Celine.

by Anonymousreply 810/31/2013

Let them touch those things! Why must they wear a hijab? They just want to touch those things! Is that so wrong?

by Anonymousreply 910/31/2013

Wow I'm surprised by the reaction here.

by Anonymousreply 1010/31/2013

I agree with her. Their culture will have to adapt to the new culture they sought out.

by Anonymousreply 1110/31/2013

I agree, too. These folks flee their countries of oppression and need to adapt to the freedom, not bring oppression with them.

by Anonymousreply 1210/31/2013

I went to college with a beautiful lesbian from an ultra conservative family. She arranged to have her father and brothers back in her country killed in order to save her own life.

by Anonymousreply 1310/31/2013

Try going to a Muslim country and not adopting to their laws, see how far that gets you. If you want to wear a hijab, move to Yemen and wear all the hijabs you want.

by Anonymousreply 1410/31/2013

You know, I feel sorry for Orthodox religions of all varieties that impose archaic misogynist dress and hehaviors on their "members". And their is much more to it than Hijabs.

Then again, if you impose a "dress" norm on people who have a right to practice their religion in a free nation supposedly, are you not then doing exactly what you set out to avoid?

Point is, those Muslim women in Canada who chose NOT to wear Hijabs can so do without fear of repercussions from their male masters.

by Anonymousreply 1510/31/2013

This is a slippery slope! Next they'll be trying to ban CAFTANS!

by Anonymousreply 1610/31/2013

Hear hear. As usual, Ms Dion is right.

by Anonymousreply 1710/31/2013

she makes sense.

by Anonymousreply 1810/31/2013

R3 - It is a ban on hijabs as well. While at work provincial employees would be prohibited from wearing overt religious symbols - among those are hijabs. Exceptions are made for university and hospital employees. Also common Christian symbols are exempt.

You would not be allowed to cover your face while receiving provincial services.

Maybe there are some folks here more familiar with Quebec politics - my understanding is it won't pass. It actually is just a political ploy by separatists.

For all you "love it or leave it" types - I wish you would leave.

by Anonymousreply 1910/31/2013

Dear Celine Dion: You’re wrong about the veil law

JACK JEDWAB

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Oct. 29 2013, 10:28 AM EDT

Dear Celine,

My wife and I count ourselves amongst your millions of devoted fans across the planet. It is a true delight to listen to your angelic voice as you put out so many great tunes in both English and French. Not everyone is aware of the many humanitarian causes you support, which are a genuine source of inspiration. So, it was with great astonishment and much dismay that we read your mistaken and inadvisable comments about the Quebec government’s proposed Charter of Values.

When interviewed in the latest edition of Maclean’s Magazine with regard to the Values Charter you say that: “… these women who practise the things they believe in have to adapt to our country. They have to not change our laws. Because you have a lot of Anglican or veiled women in a school – you can’t just take off the [Catholic] cross from the walls, or take down Christmas trees. If I go live in their country and have to be veiled, I will.”

You appear profoundly misinformed on this point as no one in the province is seriously asking to remove Christmas trees. As to the Crucifix – if indeed you’re referring to the one in the Quebec Parliament – the desire to move it elsewhere is not being led by Quebec’s religious minorities and is rather surprisingly likely to be proposed by the very government that is drafting the values charter.

Your confusion doesn’t stop there. You contend that “… it’s not about the veil – it’s beyond that. I’m not against what people wear but if you go to the hospital…you can’t just say my religion doesn’t permit me to see a woman or a male doctor.”

The situation you describe almost never arises in Quebec and is offered as an example by those more ardent proponents of the values charter that wish to whip up hysteria. Your reference to the veil (the full face cover) again suggests that you’re misinformed about the core issue of this divisive debate. The proposed Charter would deprive medical professionals that wear hijabs, keepas or turbans from their practice in public institutions. The same restriction would also apply to educators (including university professors), day care workers and many other individuals that serve the public.

It is in part for this reason that Amnesty International declared the Quebec charter of values as an important limit on fundamental rights. The Maclean’s reporter pointed this out to you but sadly it proved to no avail. If you follow the debate in Quebec you also need to know that the president of the Quebec Human Rights Commission described the proposed Charter as far from meeting the rights prescribed in our very own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our government dismissed this warning as less important than what the "majority" (of francophone Quebecers) have said in public opinion surveys about the values Charter.

To your credit, you correctly point out that: “If I’m going to see a doctor and he is gay, I’m not going to have a problem with that. It should not be an issue.” I only wish our minister of health agreed with you. Regrettably, on a widely watched Radio-Canada variety show, Minister Rejean Hebert said that “… I think these overt [religious] signs put a distance and can actually cause some problems in the relationship between the nurse, the doctor and the patient and this is what we want to avoid. I take the side of the user, the patient.” In most provinces and states in North America that comment would at the very least earned him a severe reprimand. Instead he received some enthusiastic applause from members of the audience.

Perhaps more worrisome is your statement that, “…[if] you are in Quebec and we have embraced you and opened our country for you to live in a better world, you have to adapt to our rules.” This echoes views expressed by some of the Values Charter’s advocates who give the impression that the people that will affected by such measures are newcomers to the country that refuse to abide by the rules. Note that many of the people affected by the Charter were born in the same province as you. By the way, it is the Quebec government and not members of the province's minorities that seek to change the so-called rules so as to introduce restrictions that would violate the very rights they previously considered guaranteed under the Quebec and Canadian Charters of Rights.

I hope you take the advice of this very loyal fan. Should you choose to get further involved in this issue be sure to get better informed. Otherwise you risk being exploited by politicians that regrettably care far too little about the impact of their harmful proposals on the place you and I call home.

Jack Jedwab is executive vice-President of the Canadian Institute for Identities and Migration

by Anonymousreply 2110/31/2013

I can't stand Celine Dion. Every and any song she sings turns to kitsch.

But she's absolutely right about this.

----------

By the way: note how Western women are required to wear cloth on their head when visiting certain Muslim countries. Yet the same Muslims are expect their culture to accommodated here

Why is that?

by Anonymousreply 2210/31/2013

[quote]You know, I feel sorry for Orthodox religions of all varieties that impose archaic misogynist dress and hehaviors on their "members".

Forced? Forced in the West? Forced how? I hate to break it to you, but these women believe in their religion. It's their choice. Are you the same one who screams about Jews mutilating infants' genitals for an outdated blood ritual based on superstition? Of course not. You're a bunch of hypocrites.

by Anonymousreply 2310/31/2013

[italic]By the way: note how Western women are required to wear cloth on their head when visiting certain Muslim countries. Yet the same Muslims are expect their culture to accommodated here

Why is that?[/italic]

^^I love when morons out themselves.

by Anonymousreply 2410/31/2013

Quebec’s disgraceful ‘Values Charter’

Last week, a Quebec government spokesperson revealed that the Canadian province’s premier, Pauline Marois, received emergency treatment in September at Montreal’s Sir Mortimer Davis Jewish General Hospital.

Last week, a Quebec government spokesperson revealed that the Canadian province’s premier, Pauline Marois, received emergency treatment in September at Montreal’s Sir Mortimer Davis Jewish General Hospital.

More commonly referred to by locals simply as “The Jewish,” the hospital was established in 1934, primarily by Jews, at a time when it was difficult for members of the Jewish community to pursue careers in medicine due to the enforcement of quotas at various universities limiting their enrollment numbers and opportunities thereafter. Nevertheless, the hospital has always been open to service all patients regardless of religion, race or ethnic background.

Today, it remains Quebec’s most diverse hospital.

It is therefore strikingly ironic – and patently hypocritical – that Marois sought treatment at the hospital, given her status as the leader of the Parti Quebecois, which currently forms the provincial minority government and which recently announced it would be advancing legislation – the “Charter of Quebec Values” – which, if passed, would ban all public sector employees from wearing “overt and conspicuous” religious symbols at work, including kippas, hijabs, turbans, “large” crosses, etc.

As part of the Quebec Medicare system, the Jewish General Hospital would be required to abide by any such mandate.

Yet it is nearly certain that at least one of the doctors who treated Marois – perhaps even saved her life – wore what she and her party apparently deem unacceptable workplace garb.

The Quebec government’s proposed Charter of Quebec Values is part and parcel of an increasingly rampant, worldwide movement – especially and tragically so in Europe, where the enactment of legislation restricting Jewish freedoms preceded the community’s mass extermination on the continent mere decades ago – to ban male circumcision as well as the ritual slaughter of animals; both common Jewish and, for that matter, Islamic religious practices.

Canada’s federal government – led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper – has rightfully vowed to review the constitutionality of any such law (were it ever to come into effect), with Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney recently asserting that, “If it’s determined that a prospective law violates the constitutional protections to freedom of religion to which all Canadians are entitled, we will defend those rights vigorously.”

Still, the gravity of the situation calls for the immediate implementation of assertive peremptory measures.

Just as Israel called last week on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to annul a resolution against circumcision, the government should likewise instruct its emissaries to Quebec to openly denounce the plan, as well as lobby members of the Quebec National Assembly to defeat the initiative. (As the Parti Quebecois leads a minority government, it would need the support of parliamentarians from other parties to pass the Charter.) This sort of campaign should generally be spearheaded by the organized Canadian Jewish community; however, to date, there has been scant, if any, public condemnation of the proposal on its part.

For example, The Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), the advocacy arm of the Jewish Federations system in Canada, responded to the announcement by releasing a tepid statement merely pointing out the obvious, namely that “The proposed Charter of Quebec Values... is at odds with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The proposed Charter undermines the very sense of unity within Quebec society that it claims to uphold.”

Nowhere in CIJA’s three-paragraph statement is there any explicit denunciation of the proposal, nor is any attention paid to how it will infringe specifically on the province’s Jewish population (on whose behalf CIJA is supposed to be advocating).

Nor does the Center address the fact that the intended legislation also aims to revise Quebec’s human rights act in order to negate the highlighted contradiction at the provincial level.

The Center also made the peculiar choice of issuing a joint statement, in conjunction with the Civic Education Society – located about 3,500 kilometers away from Quebec in the province of British Columbia – whose mandate is to create “A World of Multicultural Harmony.”

To its credit, CIJA commendably encouraged Quebec Jewry to participate in large numbers in a recently held demonstration against the proposed Charter, presumably so that the community’s “voice” could be heard.

Unfortunately, the rally was organized by the Rassemblement des citoyens et citoyennes engagé(e)s pour un Québec ouvert (The Assembly of Citizens [both masculine and feminine] for an Open Quebec), another multicultural entity.

The Jewish community’s message was thus no doubt largely drowned out amid the sea of “humanity.”

However, it is imperative to emphasize the Judeo-centric nature of this critical issue given that Quebec society is, in large part, notoriously anti-Israel, often a mask for flat-out anti-Semitism.

THE OVERT anti-Israelism of many prominent Quebecois figures is shocking. The most notable of these Israel-haters is Amir Khadir, a member of the provincial government best known for spearheading a boycott of a Montreal-based shoe store, called Le Marcheur, because two percent of the boutique’s inventory comprised Israeli-made apparel.

For 18 months, the store’s courageous owner, Mr. Yves Archambault, a native francophone with no previous ties to the Jewish community or to Israel, refused to yield in the face of malicious weekly demonstrations outside his shop, which decimated his bottom line. All the while, and despite his disgusting involvement in the hate campaign, opinion polls consistently found Khadir to be Quebec’s most popular politician.

There is also a seemingly endless pool of anti-Israel media personalities in Quebec, inarguably led by Stephane Gendron, who, when not bashing the Jewish state on radio or television, doubles as mayor of Huntingdon, a small town located 75 kilometers from Montreal. Among other things, Gendron has described Israel, on his French-language talk show, as an apartheid regime that does not deserve to exist, and Israelis as modern-day Nazis.

Over the past year, two other high-profile French-language radio hosts have come under intense fire for their anti- Israel/Jewish statements.

First, Benoit Dutrizac breached the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council’s code of ethics when he called on listeners to honk their horns while passing through a predominantly Jewish neighborhood in Montreal on Rosh Hashanah to protest a bylaw against noisy outdoor activity on the High Holy Days. Dutrizac said the spiteful act was necessary to send a message to the Jews that they would not be permitted to dictate how Quebecers live in their “own” society.

Two months later, Jacques Fabi was widely condemned for failing to confront an Arab caller into his show who compared Israelis to dogs and hailed the Holocaust as the most beautiful event in history.

Fabi eventually piped up – explaining that he found the behavior of Montreal’s Jewish community “annoying.”

With this kind of venom being spewed across Quebec’s airwaves, it is not surprising that polls show that support for the “Quebec Charter of Values” is growing among the public.

In a recent survey conducted by SOM, one of the largest polling firms in Quebec, 66 percent of respondents said they approved of the initiative, a figure which peaked at 71% among native francophones, who comprise 80% of the province’s population. (It is worthwhile noting that CIJA’s website wrongly contends, perhaps inadvertently, that “an increasing number of Quebecers firmly oppose the unreasonable measures set forth by the [provincial] government”).

It is impossible to contextualize the Quebec government’s initiative without briefly examining another of the province’s controversial laws, the “Charter of the French Language,” arguably the most xenophobic, insular and “provincial” legislation in the Western world.

Commonly referred to as Bill 101, the law, among other restrictions, bans the display of uniquely English-language signs throughout the province, as well as bilingual signs in which the English (or any language other than French) font is more than one-third the size of its mandatory French counterpart. (Imagine, for a moment, the uproar that would ensue if ever Israel were to adopt similar conditions on the use of Arabic.) TODAY, THE Office québécois de la langue française (The Quebec Office of the French Language) – also known to the province’s Anglophones as the “language police” or “tongue troopers” – is tasked with enforcing the law, with a taxpayer-derived budget of tens of millions of dollars. This entity is so extremely dedicated to its work that every few years some absurd incident garners it global media attention.

This past February, Montreal’s wellknown Buonanotte restaurant made worldwide headlines after the tongue troopers found it in violation of Bill 101; its menu contained words such as “pasta,” “pesce,” “antipasti” and “calamari.” The restaurant was even cited for including Italian words on the menu for which there are no French equivalents.

Amid this political and social environment, Quebec’s Jewish population has decreased by 25% – from over 120,000 to roughly 90,000 – since the Quebec nationalist/separatist movement rose to prominence in the mid-1970s. And if the “Charter of Quebec Values” is allowed to pass, it is not unreasonable to expect a second mass exodus of Jews from the province.

The Quebec government cannot be allowed to add to its anti-democratic and intolerant resume by banning forms of religious expression as it previously did with linguistic freedom. It is our duty as Jews to vehemently condemn, and fight tooth and nail against, the proposed legislation in order to preserve not only the broad rights of Quebec’s many minority groups, but also our specific heritage and customs as well.

The writer made aliya from Montreal last year.

He works as a correspondent for i24 News, a recently launched international news network that broadcasts out of Israel

by Anonymousreply 2510/31/2013

[quote] Forced? Forced in the West? Forced how?

I love when morons out themselves.

by Anonymousreply 2610/31/2013

Agree R23- rather these orthodox religions chose to adopt these archaic misogynist norms. It is their choice. It's fucked, and I feel sorry for Muslim women who chose second class status and much worse. Then we have Phylis Shafly and Ann Coulter types in our midst as well.

Point I was making, people have the freedom to express their religious practice- as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other- and as long as they do not impose it on others as many Muslim and Christian theocrats world wide do.

Nevertheless I feel sorry for them.

by Anonymousreply 2710/31/2013

Ask Russia how putting bans on religion worked out for them. Commie fucks.

by Anonymousreply 2810/31/2013

[quote]Quebec is a racist, homophobic, Right-wing shithole.

Then maybe Muslims shouldn't move there if it is so horrible.

by Anonymousreply 2910/31/2013

[quote] Point I was making, people have the freedom to express their religious practice- as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others

You mean like Muslim "men" who impose it on their women?

by Anonymousreply 3010/31/2013

How is that moronic, R24?

by Anonymousreply 3110/31/2013

I never said that I supported barbaric Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity). However, banning garb, symbols, etc, is not the makings of a free society. It's dangerous, not to mention the perfect recruitment tool for terrorists and riots.

As long as it doesn't affect me, I take no issue with you praying to your sky fairy.

The only thing that I can understand is establishments banning the covering of your face which can lead to easy crime (not able to be identified). The government has no business legislating "values." You should know better. "Values" = Right-wing garbage.

Now that Jews are up in arms about this, I'm sure all of you will change your tune.

by Anonymousreply 3310/31/2013

[quote]You mean like Muslim "men" who impose it on their women?

Nice try.

[quote]Then maybe Muslims shouldn't move there if it is so horrible.

Maybe someone should shit in your mouth.

There are Canadian Muslims, born and bread.

[italic]"If you want to get gay married, move to a state in the US that provides it."[/italic]

They should sent all the Mexicans back to where they came from in the US too. They all commit crime and won't speak English. I know this because I know.

by Anonymousreply 3410/31/2013

Why is it that we must look upon nations that declare themselves "traditionally Muslim" with respect and tolerance, but if Quebec wants to move to be a country that favors French Catholic traditions it is the worst thing in the world?

by Anonymousreply 3510/31/2013

I don't want my child to be taught at school by a woman with hijabs or her face covered, I don't want to go to the hospital and be treated by a doctor wearing a hijabs or her face covered, I don't want to be served in store by a woman wearing a hijab or her face covered because I don't live in a muslim country.

I don't understand why muslims go to settle in western modern countries and expect to impose their way of life. They often argue the case for sharia law. If it is so important to them go and live in a muslim sharia law country. There are plenty to chose from. Or are they trying to spread the muslim religion and sharia law all over the world.

by Anonymousreply 3610/31/2013

[quote]It's dangerous, not to mention the perfect recruitment tool for terrorists and riots.

So civilization should base what it does on the whims of barbarians?

by Anonymousreply 3710/31/2013

Great posts R35 and R36.

by Anonymousreply 3810/31/2013

There is only ONE person against this on this thread, writing multiple posts. Trolldar one and they all light up.

by Anonymousreply 3910/31/2013

R39 - yes indeed.

by Anonymousreply 4010/31/2013

Adapt to "our ways"? I wasn't aware Canada had an official state religion.

If Canadians were so interested in adapting to the ways of the natives, perhaps they should all emulate the dress of the Mohawks and Inuits.

by Anonymousreply 4110/31/2013

Yes, that is really practical, R41.

by Anonymousreply 4210/31/2013

I have been misquotated. When I was asked about the hijab, I did not know the scarfy ting the ladies wear was called a hijab. I thought I was being asked about a law that would ban the hand jobs. That is the things I am opposed to, the jobs with the hands on the parts of the man. Handjobs. Too messy.

by Anonymousreply 4310/31/2013

Celine, you are right on this one. Hijabs need to go the way of the dinosaur. Ewww get these women some decent looking clothes.

by Anonymousreply 4410/31/2013

Why isn't there any liberal muslims that voice opposition to these headgarbs? It's really ridiculous how caught up people get with this stuff.

I'm sure their God really doesn't care what's on their head - only what's in their hearts. (not like I'm a believer - just saying)

by Anonymousreply 4510/31/2013

What is wrong with covering your hair?? As long as people aren't covering their face, people should leave them alone.

by Anonymousreply 4610/31/2013

Seriously, though..fuck all Muslims. If you love your crazy religion, then just stay in your fucking country. Don't come to the civilized world.

by Anonymousreply 4710/31/2013

Don't some Catholic nuns still wear veils? They do in Rome. What's the difference?

by Anonymousreply 4810/31/2013

Very few Catholic nuns even exist today, let alone wearing headgarb.

Slivers of Muslim society are anti-West, but insist on living in the West and rebuking the West while taking advantage of what it has to offer. The hijab is part of the grievance/opposition culture. Wearing a covering that obscures everything but your eyes is a declaration that you are a militant Islamist and that you are above the filth of the West...where, by happenstance, you have gone out of your way to live.

If host countries want to ban extreme covering that is their right.

by Anonymousreply 4910/31/2013

"The hijab is part of the grievance/opposition culture. Wearing a covering that obscures everything but your eyes is a declaration"

The "hijab" is not the same as a "niqab" or "burqa." Learn the difference.

Question: do you support banning the (rather commonplace) practice undertaken by Orthodox Jewish women of shaving one's hair off after marriage and wear a wig? If not, why? And how is that any different?

"If host countries want to ban extreme covering that is their right."

If host countries want to ban homosexual relations, that is their right. If host countries want to ban gay marriage, that is their right. If host countries want to stone gay people to death, that is their right.

How's that working for ya, dipshit?

Critical thinking is obviously not the forte of the hateful catty gay bitches on here.

by Anonymousreply 5010/31/2013

Nuns cover their hair too--- are they going to ban that too?? As long as someone is not covering their mouth and eyes(the burqua and niquab), I don't see the problem.

by Anonymousreply 5111/01/2013

[R20]: "the West is not suppose to be the Middle East"

What you meant to type is "the West is not supposeD to be the Middle East", amongst all of the other xenophobia, right?

by Anonymousreply 5211/01/2013

In all the hatred and fear of moslems, there's also the very sad fact that sikhs (who are not moslems, it's an utterly different thing) get penalised because their men wear turbans. I'm yet to see any examples of sikh terrorism in western countries, they are usually hard working members if society.

by Anonymousreply 5311/01/2013

So when a certain group or party wants a ban on homosexuality you will support it, right? Either you believe in someone's right to live the way they chose or you don't. Jesus some of you are thick as two short planks.

by Anonymousreply 5411/01/2013

[R50} is a raving Islamic freak.

by Anonymousreply 5511/01/2013

R20 "The West should strive for freedom of expression, and that includes wearing something like a Hijab. I'm sure most of the idiots in here don't even know what it is."

How can you talk about freedom of choice when these women clearly DON'T have a choice regarding what to wear in the first place.

Celine Dion is the wrong person to speak up on these things, btw. She was never more than a race horse for he husband. Besides she is not very bright.

by Anonymousreply 5611/01/2013

[R20] "The West should strive for freedom of expression, and that includes wearing something like a Hijab. I'm sure most of the idiots in here don't even know what it is."

R20, could you tell us... if a Muslim woman decides to express herself by refusing to cover her head (and body in some cases), what kind of reaction will she get from the men in her life ...i.e. husband, father?

by Anonymousreply 5711/01/2013

No, r48, Catholic nuns don't wear veils.

In any case, the situation Celine Dion is talking about is in relation to the use of public services in Quebec. I agree, anyone using or offering a public service should have their face shown. And, in hospitals, if only a male doctor is available then that's who a woman should see. Ditto if only a female doctor is available in the case of a male patient.

by Anonymousreply 5811/01/2013

R48 Catholic nuns wear veils because they decide to become nuns. Muslim women don't have a choice to choose their religion. Even in predominantly catholic countries unless you make a choice to become a nun, nobody imposes a dress code on you. If you are born in a strict Muslim society you have no other choice than to be veiled and be a Muslim.

by Anonymousreply 5911/01/2013

My immediate feeling is WTF? But that was before I heard from some of our people who live in England. If it's like it is there where it becomes not about who can wear them, but if you're NOT wearing them you're in danger...then I can understand it to some degree.

I think people should have the option to wear whatever the hell they want but when it comes a marker for aggression towards women who don't confirm, I begin to reconsider. It's not simply about wearing hijabs. I have cousins who live in Saudi Arabia and friends who live in Egypt, they understand this (and they're all males). I think we think the whole world is like us and it's just a whimsical thing about headgear but it's deeper than that. It's a whole thing attached to it that people don't understand. I live near Dearborn, we have many Middle Eastern people who live here and such a rule here wouldn't be necessary, now. People can wear whatever they want and be completely covered, without the danger attached to not confirming in some other places in the world.

IF it's like it's been described to be in some places overseas (Europe) I understand, if it's an arbitrary, "you're different" so we're targeting thing, then obviously this is pretty messed up.

by Anonymousreply 6011/01/2013

sorry *conforming(not confirming)

by Anonymousreply 6111/01/2013

After 9/11, one of our local TV news personalities did a piece in which she walked around town in a chador with a hidden camera to see how people reacted to her. This is Houston, with its huge Muslim population and thousands of women who practice ḥijāb. Nobody batted an eye.

Local news fail.

by Anonymousreply 6211/01/2013

I went on a vacation to Dubai several years ago and I comformed with their wishes such as covering knees and shoulders because I was in their country and respected their way. Why can't they do the same when they come/visit my country.

There were a lot of muslims at the hotel. During breakfast there were muslim women who were covered from head to toe with only their eyes exposed. I could not help by discretly glance over at them as I was fascinated as to how the hell they were going to eat their breakfast. They will fill their fork or spoon and lift it to their mouths then quickly but only slightly lift their veil (you still could not see anything) and scoop the fork or spoon under their veil.

I would hate to live like that.

by Anonymousreply 6311/01/2013

I hate to think that women are being forced to wear the veil by their menfolk, but the option should exist for those women who prefer to dress modestly to practice ḥijāb. Sometimes religious women just want to feel safe from the male gaze, and the veil facilitates that feeling.

It's just as bad for the state to ban some-but-not-all outward symbols of religion as to force women to wear them.

by Anonymousreply 6411/01/2013

[quote]I went on a vacation to Dubai several years ago and I comformed with their wishes such as covering knees and shoulders because I was in their country and respected their way. Why can't they do the same when they come/visit my country.

Oh, dear, and: we're not suppose to be acting like a Middle Eastern country, dumbass. We're suppose to have freedom of expression, and that includes religion.

by Anonymousreply 6511/01/2013

[quote]Seriously, though..fuck all Muslims. If you love your crazy religion, then just stay in your fucking country. Don't come to the civilized world.

Yeah! Send the blacks back to Africa!

by Anonymousreply 6611/01/2013

Islam has the distinction of being the most fucked up major religion.

That takes some doing!

by Anonymousreply 6711/01/2013

[quote]How can you talk about freedom of choice when these women clearly DON'T have a choice regarding what to wear in the first place.

Yes they do.

[quote]R20, could you tell us... if a Muslim woman decides to express herself by refusing to cover her head (and body in some cases), what kind of reaction will she get from the men in her life ...i.e. husband, father?

About the same as your family reacted when you came out to them.

[quote]In any case, the situation Celine Dion is talking about is in relation to the use of public services in Quebec. I agree, anyone using or offering a public service should have their face shown.

The Hijab doesn't cover the face.

[quote]Muslim women don't have a choice to choose their religion.

Yes, in the West, Muslim women are publicly stoned.

To the ban religion crowd here: Communism never worked. Get over it.

by Anonymousreply 6811/01/2013

[quote]Islam has the distinction of being the most fucked up major religion.

You're exactly the reason I'm pro-choice.

by Anonymousreply 6911/01/2013

[quote]In any case, the situation Celine Dion is talking about is in relation to the use of public services in Quebec. I agree, anyone using or offering a public service should have their face shown.

The garment that covers the face is called a burqa. This isn't about burqas but about the Muslim practice of wearing a head (hair) covering, called a hijab.

by Anonymousreply 7011/01/2013

Sorry, I think she's wrong. If we're arguing against conformity, the why are we making people try to conform? Canada is multicultural and diverse, whereas Islamic countries aren't. You can't even begin to compare the laws or cultures between the two. People come to Canada for opportunities and not necessarily to abandon any religious or cultural practices and beliefs they've known their entire lives. Why are we asking them to? To conform to some neo-Eurocentric notion of what society should look like? The KKK would love that.

by Anonymousreply 7111/01/2013

People can bullshit all they want - the hijab, nijab, etc is a very obvious symbol put on the body to indicate someone is of lower status. The men walk around in normal Western clothes.

by Anonymousreply 7211/01/2013

R68 "About the same as your family reacted when you came out to them."

Yeah right.

(I love it when morons out themselves.)

by Anonymousreply 7311/01/2013

[R65]: "not suppose to"..."we're suppose to"

by Anonymousreply 7411/01/2013

[quote]So when a certain group or party wants a ban on homosexuality you will support it, right? Either you believe in someone's right to live the way they chose or you don't. Jesus some of you are thick as two short planks.

Uh no, you don't support it. Adults are able to reason on a case by case basis.

I love that you think Muslims are your friends and would welcome you with open arms. They don't just want to be able to wear their coverings, eventually they're going to want to demand that it is law for all women in Western countries. If you don't understand that the ultimate goal is to remake the West into an Islamic dominated society you are a fucking idiot.

by Anonymousreply 7511/01/2013

No, r70, this isn't about the headscarf, this is about the veil, it's about women covering their faces up.

As I said, when it's about providing or using public services, women should not be veiled and we should be able to see their face.

Walking on the street, they can wear what they want. Dion was discussing the proposed Quebec Charter of Values, which only proposes to ban the burqa in public services.

As for all those idiots going on about freedom of religion, there is nothing in Islamic theology that says women must cover themselves up and not have their faces showing. That's a cultural "value" that says the sight of women's flesh will tempt men, so if women don't want to be raped they should cover their whole body, including their face.

Presumably you also agree with the execution of gays in Islamic countries as "religious freedom".

by Anonymousreply 7611/01/2013

Her is a true story about how Muslims came to call their religion Islam.

The Prophet Mohamed was working a food cart, selling camel fat pirozhkis.

A scribe bit into one an asked, “Is this beef?”

Mohamed replied, “Is lamb.”

by Anonymousreply 7711/01/2013

Actually, DIon isn't talking about banning the burka or the hijab, she's not completely answering the question of the charter of values, but making a good point about public services, such as hospitals.

But, she's not 100% behind the proposed charter because she doesn't believe in the banning of overt religious symbolism.

by Anonymousreply 7811/01/2013

[quote]Yet the same Muslims are expect their culture to accommodated here

Aside from being illiterate, you're also an ignorant twit who has no clue what the United States is supposed to stand for when it comes to freedom of RELIGION.

I mean I don't give a flying fuck about other "western" countries where they really don't make an effort to accept minorities because in those nations where they claim to be oh so 'enlightened,' they still make it difficult for even those minorities who want to acclimate themselves into the country.

A woman wearing a headscarf doesn't affect your life. The fact that you think that it does is your problem, not her problem.

There are women out there who wear them and don't care if someone is gay, just as there are women in bikinis who think you'll burn in hell for being gay.

You couldn't have a more crystal clear example of 'judging a book by its cover' than this topic right here.

by Anonymousreply 7911/01/2013

[quote]Muslim women are publicly stoned.

In how many Muslim countries and how often?

This is one of those things that hits the western media and turns into something that apparently happens to thousands of women in all of these countries when it simply isn't true.

Do you honestly believe there are women fucking men in these countries, families finding out and they all end up dead? We're talking about hundreds of millions of people and once in a blue moon you hear about some stoning or honor killing. Do you think those are the only times women are caught fucking outside of marriage? Grow up and stop being so fucking simplistic.

The govt and media lied to you about another country and it ended up costing hundreds of thousands their lives and (at least) a trillion dollars, but you'll believe women are getting stoned left and right or that they walk twelve paces behind some guy in every Muslim country or every single one is covered in a beekeeper's outfit. Get fucking real.

Are there major problems in these countries? Abso-fucking-lutely, but some of you people are just so buffoonish in your knowledge of the world beyond your own computer screens.

Some of you are read like a caricature of the dumb American.

by Anonymousreply 8011/01/2013

Some of you read like a caricature of the dumb American*

by Anonymousreply 8111/01/2013

R81 Especially the apologists for the outrageous sexism found in Religion.

by Anonymousreply 8211/01/2013

r81 Because only Americans are islamophobes?? Have you been to Europe?? This thread is about Canada. Wouldn't it make sense to assume most people in this thread aren't from the US? Unless you are saying "American" in the continent sense.

by Anonymousreply 8311/01/2013

R80, just having any provision in 2013 in which there is a possibility that a woman will be stoned to death is enough for me. WTF is wrong with you?

by Anonymousreply 8411/01/2013

Suddenly the resident misogynists of DL are worried about oppressive conditions for women?? The frauen???

Racist fucktards.

by Anonymousreply 8511/01/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 8611/01/2013

R85 the oppressive conditions for women ...and gays.

by Anonymousreply 8711/01/2013

Didn't realize gays wore the hijab, R87.

by Anonymousreply 8811/01/2013

R88: for hijab, read caftan.

by Anonymousreply 8911/01/2013

I will defend women who want to see only female doctors. When my mother was on her death bed, she refused to talk to any male doctors. That isn't a religion issue, women just find it more comfortable!

by Anonymousreply 9011/01/2013

lmao, Are you guys telling me you worry about women?

by Anonymousreply 9111/01/2013

You guys do know that NO muslim countries are free, right? So they can impose their laws on foreigners as much as they want.

by Anonymousreply 9211/01/2013

[quote]Especially the apologists for the outrageous sexism found in Religion.

I'm an apologists to anyone who has to succumb to daily racism in a free country where they've done nothing wrong.

by Anonymousreply 9311/01/2013

What racism are you talking about R93????????????

by Anonymousreply 9411/01/2013

r94 dear, I hope you are joking!

by Anonymousreply 9511/01/2013

[R92]: "You guys do know that NO muslim countries are free, right? So they can impose their laws on foreigners as much as they want."

Wrong in at least one case (and I would love to know the criteria you use to classify a country as "muslim") - Indonesia is the largest predominantly Islamic country in the world - over 200 million people. It's a parliamentary democracy, supports freedom of religious expression and does not enforce veiling of its women.

So many of the comments in this thread betray a complete lack of understanding of the different flavours of Islam to be found across the globe.

by Anonymousreply 9611/01/2013

The racist queens on DL have the same mentality as any run of the mill straight male bigots.

White male privilege trumps everything else.

by Anonymousreply 9711/01/2013

About gay rights in Indonesia:

"In 2002, the Indonesian Government gave Aceh Province the right to introduce Sharia Law, albeit only to Muslim residents. For example, the city of Palembang introduced jail and fines for homosexual sex."

"Under the law homosexuality is defined as an act of ‘prostitution that violates the norms of common decency, religion, and legal norms as they apply to societal rule'."

"The following acts are defined as acts of prostitution: homosexual sex, lesbians, sodomy, sexual harassment, and other pornographic acts. Fifty-two regions have since enacted Sharia-based law from the Qur'an, which criminalizes homosexuality."

by Anonymousreply 9811/01/2013

[R98]: "About gay rights in Indonesia"

Which has what to do with women being forced to wear the hijab, niqab or burqa?

by Anonymousreply 9911/01/2013

Try harder R99.

by Anonymousreply 10011/01/2013

It's ALWAYS about the queens, R99.

by Anonymousreply 10111/01/2013

Last time I was here, there were anti-muslim posts saying all muslims are evil, should die and what Sadam did was good. Now I'm supposed to believe you queens care about muslim women and gays? lmao, why don't you admit you hate them all. What are you so fucking afraid off?

by Anonymousreply 10211/01/2013

Of course they hate everyone, R102. Gay men are mostly narcissists and narcissists hate everyone. All of this faux outrage is just another expression of hatred fuelled by deep seated narcissism.

by Anonymousreply 10311/01/2013

So, gay people who are against anti-gay bigots and anti-women bigots are "racist".

Yep, that makes perfect sense.

by Anonymousreply 10411/01/2013

Should I really give a shit about this?

by Anonymousreply 10511/01/2013

Most muslims don't want sharia law spread or their cultures, but the ones that do want it spread are much louder.

by Anonymousreply 10611/01/2013

[quote]So, gay people who are against anti-gay bigots and anti-women bigots are "racist".

Please don't pretend you care. I don't like most muslim cultures, I'll say it, but I'm not going to pretend to be standing up to something, and I'm also not going to be a racist asshole like you and Celine cunt Dion. Why don't you tell us how you really feel.

by Anonymousreply 10711/01/2013

Maybe you have selective hearing, R107.

by Anonymousreply 10811/01/2013

No, r109, It's what I've witnessed.

Yes, I've been near muslims and survived.

by Anonymousreply 10911/01/2013

Drama queen at R110

by Anonymousreply 11011/01/2013

r111, problem?

by Anonymousreply 11111/01/2013

Yes, I have a problem with drama queens. Sue me.

by Anonymousreply 11211/01/2013

Muslims being hated is normal. They don't seem to care anyway. Why pretend you care? They are born with anti-shields or something. That's the only reason they'll be staying in a country that promotes hatred towards them. Maybe one or two will argue, but even they give up. Screw Celine, It's not that we hear from her everyday anyway.

by Anonymousreply 11311/01/2013

R68 You are a lair and you know it!

by Anonymousreply 11411/01/2013

Hajabs = public employees prohibited from wearing at work. (unlike crosses which would be permitted)

Veils = covered faces prohibited when receiving public service.

Charter of Quebec Values = state enforced bigotry and harassment

by Anonymousreply 11511/02/2013

"If host countries want to ban extreme covering that is their right."

"If host countries want to ban homosexual relations, that is their right. If host countries want to ban gay marriage, that is their right. If host countries want to stone gay people to death, that is their right."

Except Canada is pro-gay-marriage and the niqab-wearing Muslims are against gay marriage, but go ahead excuse-making for militant Muslims who despise you!

by Anonymousreply 11611/02/2013

Islam promotes the death sentence for homosexuality and I am still waiting to hear any mainstream muslim group speak out against those kinds of laws as well as the ones that require stoning to death for adultery or blasphemy. The silence is telling.

by Anonymousreply 11711/02/2013

I live in Canada and have noticed an increase in muslim women wearing face coverings since these bans have been proposed. I do not think most of these women are doing so because they are so devoted but because they want to promote Islamic beliefs. Many Muslims believe we should all be living under sharia law so having many children, recruiting others and promoting islam as much as possible in the new country helps their goal of transforming the country they are in into an islamic state.

by Anonymousreply 11811/02/2013

In the UK there was a case of a muslim woman insisting on teaching young children wearing the face covering. She insisted she could not make any exception to her religious belief that her face must be covered at all times. As it turned out, she had NOT worn her face covering to her interview, which was with a man. Obviously exceptions are allowed and she had used deception to get the job. Again, another tactic to promote islamic ideology.

by Anonymousreply 11911/02/2013

I read this thread title quickly and thought it read: "Celine Dion Supports the BAN on Handjobs!".

Which honestly would have been much more entertaining.

by Anonymousreply 12011/02/2013

I spent time in Bulgaria where Muslim clerics paid impoverished local women to wear extreme forms of Islamic dress. This is in a society where ethnic relations are already tense and carry far more historical baggage than in the US or Canada. Far from being an innocuous "free to be you and me," niqab is a politicized form of line-drawing and pot-stirring.

by Anonymousreply 12111/02/2013

Tons of Muslim women are in women shelters, because they have to fear for their life by a threatening family member. Often these women refuse to agree to an arranged marriage or don't obey to the strict code for female behavior imposed on them by their families or by the Muslim society they are living in.

Young girls growing up completely isolated from the non Muslim society they live in. Schools complaining that esp girls don't speak a single word of the language of the country they live in.

I work with a Muslim woman at work and she is my favorite working college. Funny, smart, intelligent. But I do feel sorry for her that she does not have the same freedom and opportunities I have.

Tricky subject, but the worst thing a society (Muslim or non Muslim) could do is to isolate themselves.

by Anonymousreply 12211/04/2013

wonderful

by Anonymousreply 12301/26/2014
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.