Print
Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says
by Zosia Bielski, National Post
Thanks to Catalin Sandu for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e34f88e3-8254-46ed-908c-a1339f350c22
'Message Of Submission'
The group that 12 years ago fought vehemently for the rights of students who wore a hijab in Quebec's public schools is now trying to ban their teachers from wearing the Islamic headscarf and other "ostentatious" religious symbols while at work.
The Quebec Council on the Status of Women, a 20-member body that advises the government on issues relating to women, is urging the province to force public employees to remove visible religious signs when they are on the job. Aside from large Christian crosses, Sikh turbans and Jewish yarmulkes, these also include the hijab, a veil that generally covers the hair and neck, and the more controversial niqab, which covers the face, leaving only the eyes exposed.
The council argues that equality between men and women trumps religious freedoms, and that the symbols oppress.
"Freedom of religion must be limited, intrinsically, by the right to equality between women and men," a "hallmark of the Quebec identity," president Christiane Pelchat said in a statement, declining to comment last week.
"The niqab sends a message of the submission of a woman, which should not be conveyed to young children as part of a secular education, which is required to promote equality between men and women," the council said.
In the proposed ban, it also stressed the protection of Quebec culture and the religious neutrality of state institutions.
It is a quite a different stance from the one Ms. Pelchat's predecessor took in 1995, when Montreal high school students were being expelled for wearing a hijab and the council was defending them.
Then, council president Marie Lavigne advocated for the headscarf. She argued that a prohibition would infringe on freedom of choice and actually be sexist, as it would only affect female Muslims.
"Banning the veil is not the best way to fight fundamentalism or the best way to ensure equality between the sexes," Ms. Lavigne said at the time, as the council published a 54-page document on Islamic veils in the school, part of a report on women's rights that it prepared for the provincial government.
Then, Ms. Lavigne reasoned that girls who were allowed to wear hijab to school would better integrate in Quebec, a "pluralistic" society.
Today, Ms. Pelchat argues that when they are worn by such civil servants as teachers, symbols such as the yarmulke, the turban and the niqab run contrary to the "long march of Quebec towards secularity."
Many critics see the council's move as a shift toward laicite, which has long informed France's heritage and which played itself out most recently when the country banned religious apparel from public schools in 2004. In France's drive to disconnect government from religion, religion is given no special status, although it can be freely practised.
Asha Varadharajan, a professor who teaches women's studies and English at Queen's University, says the logic behind the ban is problematic.
"They're looking at it from the point of view of civil servants being members of public institutions who abide by federal law, which is a secular law by any stretch of the imagination. But the trouble is, the secular law is precisely what also allows for freedom of religious expression."
Prof. Varadharajan says religious artifacts such as the veil are hardly a national costume, but have everything to do with the "everydayness of the wearer's existence." She takes issue with how the council has framed the issue, between women's equality and religious freedom.
"Feminism tends to be conceived of in a kind of a monolithic way. It's usually a kind of ill-examined Western form of feminism that's upheld as the kind of equality all women need to strive for."
Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, which works to integrate Muslim women into Western society, says the proposed ban also fails to properly distinguish between the hijab and the niqab, and their context in Canada.
"If you go to the argument that a woman has the right to dress as she chooses, a state should not be telling people how to dress."
The most vocal opposition came from the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN), which demanded an apology last week.
"I don't know why they keep going after Muslim women. We do have brains under these scarves," she said.
Ms. Pelchat, a former Liberal member of the provincial legislature, will present the council's recommendations before Quebec's roving commission on the "reasonable accommodation" of immigrants and religious minorities before Nov. 30.
Reposted from:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e34f88e3-8254-46ed-908c-a1339f350c22
'Message Of Submission'
The group that 12 years ago fought vehemently for the rights of students who wore a hijab in Quebec's public schools is now trying to ban their teachers from wearing the Islamic headscarf and other "ostentatious" religious symbols while at work.
The Quebec Council on the Status of Women, a 20-member body that advises the government on issues relating to women, is urging the province to force public employees to remove visible religious signs when they are on the job. Aside from large Christian crosses, Sikh turbans and Jewish yarmulkes, these also include the hijab, a veil that generally covers the hair and neck, and the more controversial niqab, which covers the face, leaving only the eyes exposed.
The council argues that equality between men and women trumps religious freedoms, and that the symbols oppress.
"Freedom of religion must be limited, intrinsically, by the right to equality between women and men," a "hallmark of the Quebec identity," president Christiane Pelchat said in a statement, declining to comment last week.
"The niqab sends a message of the submission of a woman, which should not be conveyed to young children as part of a secular education, which is required to promote equality between men and women," the council said.
In the proposed ban, it also stressed the protection of Quebec culture and the religious neutrality of state institutions.
It is a quite a different stance from the one Ms. Pelchat's predecessor took in 1995, when Montreal high school students were being expelled for wearing a hijab and the council was defending them.
Then, council president Marie Lavigne advocated for the headscarf. She argued that a prohibition would infringe on freedom of choice and actually be sexist, as it would only affect female Muslims.
"Banning the veil is not the best way to fight fundamentalism or the best way to ensure equality between the sexes," Ms. Lavigne said at the time, as the council published a 54-page document on Islamic veils in the school, part of a report on women's rights that it prepared for the provincial government.
Then, Ms. Lavigne reasoned that girls who were allowed to wear hijab to school would better integrate in Quebec, a "pluralistic" society.
Today, Ms. Pelchat argues that when they are worn by such civil servants as teachers, symbols such as the yarmulke, the turban and the niqab run contrary to the "long march of Quebec towards secularity."
Many critics see the council's move as a shift toward laicite, which has long informed France's heritage and which played itself out most recently when the country banned religious apparel from public schools in 2004. In France's drive to disconnect government from religion, religion is given no special status, although it can be freely practised.
Asha Varadharajan, a professor who teaches women's studies and English at Queen's University, says the logic behind the ban is problematic.
"They're looking at it from the point of view of civil servants being members of public institutions who abide by federal law, which is a secular law by any stretch of the imagination. But the trouble is, the secular law is precisely what also allows for freedom of religious expression."
Prof. Varadharajan says religious artifacts such as the veil are hardly a national costume, but have everything to do with the "everydayness of the wearer's existence." She takes issue with how the council has framed the issue, between women's equality and religious freedom.
"Feminism tends to be conceived of in a kind of a monolithic way. It's usually a kind of ill-examined Western form of feminism that's upheld as the kind of equality all women need to strive for."
Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, which works to integrate Muslim women into Western society, says the proposed ban also fails to properly distinguish between the hijab and the niqab, and their context in Canada.
"If you go to the argument that a woman has the right to dress as she chooses, a state should not be telling people how to dress."
The most vocal opposition came from the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN), which demanded an apology last week.
"I don't know why they keep going after Muslim women. We do have brains under these scarves," she said.
Ms. Pelchat, a former Liberal member of the provincial legislature, will present the council's recommendations before Quebec's roving commission on the "reasonable accommodation" of immigrants and religious minorities before Nov. 30.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, October 9, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 36 of 36 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #77616 by Veronique on October 9, 2007 at 10:08 pm
I don't know what to make of this. On one hand this clothing is something that some Muslim women feel comfortable with. On the other, it appears to a yoke around them, keeping them in submission.I don't know whether the article is talking about Muslim women who have come to Quebec and have been used to covering their heads and feel exposed without that covering – be it whatever type of head wear. If they are refugees, I can understand why they would want to be covered up. Takes a while to slough off repression. The only thing wrong with this is that I would have thought that refugees were running away from the strictures of fundamentalism and female repression. In that case, I don't understand why they would come to a (groping towards) secular state and now fight to retain the symbols of submission.
Or is it referring to women who have converted to Islam? If so, then the passion of the newly converted is usually pretty high and slavish adherence to the perceived norm is inevitable – at least for a while. And if head scarves etc are part of the norm, then of course they are going to wear them.
Remember the video that claimed that there were something like 400,000 Muslims in Texas? There was a converted Texan interviewed and all the women and girls in his family were wandering around the streets of Texas in traditional Islamic attire. I thought it a bit precious, but then again, they were recent converts. See above.
I also recall seeing a documentary where a western female reporter was in Afghanistan. When she donned a burqa in order to go about in safety, she commented that she felt quite protected and invisible under that burqa. But that was in Afghanistan, where I could understand her comments.
In Quebec? I just don't know. The only thing I can really say is that religions aim for and succeed in being a stranglehold on the hearts and minds of people. That's why religions disgust me. Apart from the intellectual dishonesty and emotional dependence of course:-).
Very odd
V
Other Comments by Veronique
3. Comment #77617 by Eric Blair on October 9, 2007 at 10:15 pm
In the context of French-Quebec's often scarcely hidden suspicion toward ethnic minorities -- after the 1995 referendum on separation (narrowly defeated), the premier at the time blamed "the ethnic vote" -- this recommendation doesn't bode well.Setting aside its appropriateness, in practice it would really only affect Muslim women (maybe Sikh men?) and Orthodox Jews. Both groups already have tense relations with French-Quebeckers.
(Christian -- Catholics, mainly -- might have to take their crosses from around their necks.)
The purpose of a secular society, as the article notes, is to ensure all groups are treated equally and without favour or prejudice -- not to eradicate certain or all religions.
Where religious clothing does not interfere with someone doing their job -- and in some cases the full-face niquab may do so -- then banning it is an overreaction. Banning it in the name of gender equality is ideological claptrap.
I don't think this will fly, though it will appeal to certain nativist elements in Quebec as well as some overzealous feminists.
EB
Other Comments by Eric Blair
4. Comment #77618 by Janus on October 9, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Hmmm.On one hand, people should have the right to dress as they wish.
On the other hand, we all know where the custom to hide women's bodies comes from: Oppressive, sexist Abrahamic religion. There's no reason to delude ourselves and pretend it's just another custom.
Other Comments by Janus
5. Comment #77620 by Zzyx1170 on October 9, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Should a person wearing silly religious garb based on silly religious beliefs be seen as fundamentally different from someone wearing a tin foil hat to keep the CIA from reading their thoughts?Other Comments by Zzyx1170
6. Comment #77623 by Bonzai on October 9, 2007 at 10:53 pm
I think a total ban on all religious symbols is an over-kill. I see no harm in wearing a Yarmulke or a headscarf, I draw the line when someone shows up at work in a niqab(a face veil).Even though a comprehensive ban of all religious symbols is unnecessarily divisive on a practical level, I think the principle behind it is a valid one. Public employees represent the government and it is not unjustifiable to impose a dress code that reflects the secular nature of state. I expect there will be cries of "racism" from the usual corners, but it has nothing to do with race. I don't know the technical details of the law, but I doubt that anyone sensible would scream "racism" if a Mosque disallows expressions of other faiths (say a crucifix) on its premise. Why would it be "racist" if the government decides to disallow religious expressions in secular institutions?
As an immigrant and an atheist I actually find the idea that one's identity is somehow tied to his/her religion offensive.
Religious freedom means one is free to follow whatever religion without fearing persecutions, but it shouldn't mean institutions have to go out of their ways to cater to or otherwise endorse religious beliefs.
Other Comments by Bonzai
7. Comment #77638 by Goldy on October 10, 2007 at 12:59 am
Ban it all. They can wear what they like out of work. Ban it before it gets out of hand, like the Muslim doctors thing on another thread. If they don't like it, they can fuck off."I don't know why they keep going after Muslim women. We do have brains under these scarves," she said.
Use them then, fuckwit. People don't like it so why insist? It makes you a target, an object of hatred, so why insist? Is it piety (my fucking arse)? Or just some shitty political point scoring?
"If you go to the argument that a woman has the right to dress as she chooses, a state should not be telling people how to dress."
If they are employing you, yes they can. You can wear whatever the fuck you want outside of the job. Hell, cover up totally outside of the school, be the oppressed person you want to be in the home, but if the state is paying your wages, you accept the conditions. If you accepted the conditions, follow them or fuck off.
Jesus Christ, why the fuck are the fucking fuckwits proliferating so quickly? Seems everyone is demanding some right they feel like every week! I thought the whole point of immigration was to leave shit behind - it sure as hell was in my case (well, mostly...he said hiding his England shirt and swiftly donning an All Black jersey). Why the hell is it allowed in - it's only a poison that fucks up a community.
I feel rather strongly about this at times...even when I try and temper my feelings by hoping teh article writers are being a tad inflammatory...
Other Comments by Goldy
8. Comment #77639 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 10, 2007 at 1:02 am
The line to draw has to be where your religious conviction begin to interfere with your ability to do your job.Don't want to treat STD's, scan alcohol or teach kids using the full spectrum of expression available? Then get another job. Nice to be on the same side as the rest of the atheists on this one:-)
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
9. Comment #77640 by scottishgeologist on October 10, 2007 at 1:04 am
Religious dress and symbols actually serve a useful purpose. They make the delusionists and nutjobs easy to spot and identify. And then avoid like the plague.Whenever I see that irritating, pathetic fish symbol on the back of a car or some sort of similar badge, I think "whoops, avoid....."
SG
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
10. Comment #77642 by Goldy on October 10, 2007 at 1:18 am
Whenever I see that irritating, pathetic fish symbol on the back of a car or some sort of similar badge, I think "whoops, avoid....."
That shitty little symbol has taught my daughter the term fuckwit. Bit embarrassing since she's not yet 2.... I shall learn to speak quieter...
I'm still a bit angry, mind. Why bring your baggage when moving to a new life? Shit, there's people living here who don't even realise rugby is rather important! Falun gong practitioners giving pamphlets out on Mt Eden here in Auckland. As if people like me give a flying fuck considering their views on mixed race children...fucking organ donors. Grrrr!
Other Comments by Goldy
11. Comment #77645 by Philip1978 on October 10, 2007 at 1:34 am
Goldy, You swear like a trooper, bravo! I am a big fan of swearing properly, please keep up the good work (I promise you this is a compliment!)
Your daughter says fuckwit? my cousins daughter had him in a massive panic on a drive home once, he yelled bollocks when he was nearly hit by another car. She sat there in the car repeating bollocks all the way home till he managed to turn it in to
cricket!
I hate religious clothing, from the vicar who looked like he was from the Klu Klux Klan at a christening I had to go to the other week to the ridiculous Burkhas I see some poor women wearing. Burkhas are evil, I am disgusted by them because to me its a symbol of male oppression over women, they have never been taught how to properly behave to women and it annoys the crap out of me. Women deserve better respect and freedom to wear what they want for goodness sake!
As for that crap about those Muslim Doctors etc, dont get me started!
Bugger, I am ranting! Philip, slow down breath!
I once heard a small child ask her mother if a man walking past was in a lot of pain, she gasped and said "No darling that's a turban!". By this time I was crying with laughter, kids are hilarious!
Right, with that rather unPC topic, I shall go and behave myself!
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
12. Comment #77649 by Veronique on October 10, 2007 at 1:57 am
Shit Goldy they have finally got your fucking goat haven't they:-). I have never seen you so wound up:-).Thank god you have a sense of proportion. Bloody hell, you'd be lost without it. Whew. Good rant, my dear!!!
Shit – you mean if I come over to NZ I have to leave all my preconceptions at home? Humph, not happy Goldy:-). I mean, what about my wine that I won't be able to buy in NZ? Tragic, eh?
Maybe you will have to ban all Aussies. Sob. I'd like to come to Auckland and meet you:-). Do you know Jim Battye, PhD Science, Wellington (I think). I have known him all my life, but haven't contacted him for ages. Nice man. Academic.
The best I can give you
V
Other Comments by Veronique
13. Comment #77651 by nickthelight on October 10, 2007 at 2:12 am
Ban all religious dress in schools and workplaces, especially schools. The hajib is the most offensive and frankly rude. I have to remove my crash helmet when I enter a bank or post office and even Dixon's! But I have seen so many women dressed from head to toe in black in bank's etc, why are they never asked to remove there veil's? It's just pathetic. Other Comments by nickthelight
14. Comment #77661 by lbq on October 10, 2007 at 3:23 am
To my mind, this is extremely simple: religious freedom. This means that PUPILS, if they choose, must be allowed to wear religios symbols in school, though a niqab of course may have to be banned as it creates severe problems in class. Who IS that girl really?But at the same time, religious freedom demands that at least publicly funded schools must be secular. This means that they must not try to impose religious belief on the pupils, either directly or indirectly, by the flaunting of religious symbols. (And religious schools should not be permitted, as they force religion on defenceless children.) Though frankly, I see the Sikh turban as more ethnic than really religious. Especially as Sikhism does not proselytize.
So all in all, I see the Council's stance as completely consistent.
Other Comments by lbq
15. Comment #77663 by scottishgeologist on October 10, 2007 at 3:24 am
Goldy, LOL!Quite right, have a good swear -its quite cathartic. I agree that fish symbol pisses me off big time. I know a guy who has one not just on the back of his car, but the front as well.
So when you see him coming you can think "fannybaws" (see footnote) as well as when you are stuck behind him.
And OF COURSE the car is a very nice expensive SUV complete with personalised number plates. Guy is loaded. Waste of a good SUV I reckon. Apparently he has a reputation for being terribly, awfully evangelical.....
SG
Fannybaws -a wonderful Scottish expression of contempt, beautifully use by Ford Keirnan, the "Big Man" in "Chewin the Fat" Look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5JwPFVUsbw
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
16. Comment #77664 by logical on October 10, 2007 at 3:37 am
Thank goodness this council has changed (other people voted in?) or simply learned from France´s legalization. My experience with the catholic nuns at school (solved because the vatican has personnel problems nowadays) was so bad that I recommend firing anyone with religious attire.
Other Comments by logical
17. Comment #77681 by antifaithstl on October 10, 2007 at 6:22 am
Denying Muslim women from exposing their oppressive garb to the general public only aids in promoting the falsehood that they are not slaves of their gender. Everyone should be able to freely witness the absurdity of their condition. If the Koran dictated that women shove cupcakes up each nostril every full moon, it should be allowed. It doesn't directly affect anyone else.Other Comments by antifaithstl
18. Comment #77695 by PrimeNumbers on October 10, 2007 at 7:36 am
Interesting idea - to force those who think they're religious to the tenets of that religion: force Islamic women to dress without an ounce of flesh showing, Christians only to be held to their ten commandments to the letter, to be forced to kill their children if they speak back to them etc. Jews to be locked up if they eat pork or whatever. Of course, their "get out of Jail free card" is to state that, after all, they don't beleive in their religion. Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
19. Comment #77697 by Alkal on October 10, 2007 at 7:56 am
"Religious freedom" they call it. But are the wearers of that symbol not forced to wear it by the strange rules of the religion they belong to? Be it the naqab, or a turban or a cross or other things, isn't their not "choice" in wearing it. If there is not, and in most cases it is a result of religious indocrination and abuse( a girl at the age of 10 would not want to keep her head wrapped up all the time, nor a boy of 7 grow his hair and wrap it up) is nto freedom of religion superseding freedom of the individual.Other Comments by Alkal
20. Comment #77703 by steveroot on October 10, 2007 at 8:25 am
17. Comment #77681 by antifaithstl on October 10, 2007 at 6:22 am
Everyone should be able to freely witness the absurdity of their condition...It doesn't directly affect anyone else.
I'm going to agree with this. Letting people express their religious preferences seems (to me) unlikely to cause any problems. I don't even mind christians wearing crucifixes, etc., (though I find that at *least* as annoying as the head scarf). The turban of the sikh is more of a curiosity (to me), and as someone commented earlier is almost more cultural than religious (besides, what do you do with all that hair?).
The point is that as long as the wearer/bearer of the religious ornament/symbol/device is *not* engaging in active proselytizing, these things seem (to me) to be nothing more than expressions of individuality. The stickier question is whether someone in authority, such as a teacher, should exhibit signs of religious preference. I doubt many people, even children, would get attracted to islam (e.g.) by seeing someone in a hijab (especially in a hot climate- whew!).
Of course, the full-coverage-except-for-the-eyes thing is right out. In most settings, particularly in education, one *must* be able to see the facial expression of the student to assess comprehension.
BTW, has anyone besides me noticed that the women in the full-coverage jobs almost invariably have their eyes made up to the nines? What is *that* about? I thought the whole presentation was aimed at "modesty" (women being responsible for the behavior of men and their "uncontrollable lust").
Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
21. Comment #77714 by Bonzai on October 10, 2007 at 9:09 am
BTW, has anyone besides me noticed that the women in the full-coverage jobs almost invariably have their eyes made up to the nines? What is *that* about? I thought the whole presentation was aimed at "modesty" (women being responsible for the behavior of men and their "uncontrollable lust").
I think it is a fetish really, belly dancers apparently cover their faces too.
Other Comments by Bonzai
22. Comment #77722 by TheCelestialTeapot on October 10, 2007 at 9:49 am
I have to say that the fish symbol doesn't really upset me that much. Whenever I see someone with a fish symbol on the back of their car I speed up next to them so we are side by side, and then I smile and gracefully and politely raise my middle finger up at them in salutation. I then proceed to slow down and get behind their vehicle where I can see the fish symbol again, and I ever so gently and softly ram the front of my truck into their rear fender thus sending them spinning and careening off of a nearby cliff.Other Comments by TheCelestialTeapot
23. Comment #77728 by Matt7895 on October 10, 2007 at 10:21 am
My English Literature teacher at Sixth Form was a Muslim and she wore a headscarf. If it were not for that headscarf, you would not know she was a Muslim. She taught in a completely secular way and didn't let her religious views filter in to her teaching. We studied William Blake (a religious fanatic) and First World War poetry (heavy on jingoism and God-is-on-our-side stuff) and not once did she talk of her religion. She knew that her religious views were a private thing to be kept in her own personal life and were not to be pushed on anyone else. She was a great example of how Muslim women can be just as good teachers as any else. Headscarves are not worth campaigning against in my view (at least not until more distasteful elements of Islam are extinguished) because they are not imitating, the face is not covered, only the hair.I do have a massive problem with the burqa and niqab. They are clear signs of sexual oppression, more so than the headscarf which can just be interpreted as a sign of religious pride. The burqa and niqab have a far more sinister purpose though, they are callsigns of the wretched sharia law and the Hadith, an evil book if there ever was one. Women are taught in Middle-Eastern cultures that they are inferior to men and that they must cover their skin and obey the man in all things. If he chooses to hit her, then she cannot complain. If she is raped, she takes the blame. If she disobeys her husband he has the right to mutilate her or kill her. Now obviously many Muslims in western society don't hold such extreme views. But their niqabs and burqas are relics of an intolerant, oppressive, violent society which has no place in free, equal civilisation.
[/religious rant off]
Other Comments by Matt7895
24. Comment #77733 by scottishgeologist on October 10, 2007 at 10:47 am
The business of women covering their heads isnt just a Muslim thing. If you were to go to a church in places like the Western Isles of Scotland you would see a lot of women wearing hats.And before the Wee Flea says anything, yes , it applies to his church as well. Very much so.
And the reason for all this covering the (female) head - well, you can read about it in the New Testament - Bible says so, therefore it must be absolutely right.
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
25. Comment #77734 by ridelo on October 10, 2007 at 10:57 am
Maybe it's time to introduce something new qua religious headdress. I suggest something that looks like an inverted spaghetti bowl.Other Comments by ridelo
26. Comment #77736 by Lana on October 10, 2007 at 11:04 am
People should be allowed to wear what they want to wear unless it interferes with their job. Yes, a full covering of the face would interfere. A scarf or a cross on a necklace wouldn't. I think the same rules should apply to students.Big deal. Who cares?
I must admit there are times I'd like to be able to wear a scarf because of a bad hair day.
Other Comments by Lana
27. Comment #77745 by Freelance Cynic on October 10, 2007 at 11:30 am
Re: Eric Blair #77617Would you please stop the Quebec bashing? It always annoys me to no end when my fellow canadians indulge in it, either due to prejudice or ignorance... we should know better.
Other Comments by Freelance Cynic
28. Comment #77771 by Goldy on October 10, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Sorry for the wee rant all - V, come to NZ anytime...but after Feb it stops raining :-) Loads of wine here, but should you be in Auckland, let me take you to Galbraith's (http://www.alehouse.co.nz/) - wine is OK but beer is still king!To the others, sorry. Also apologies for the less extensive use of language. Fuck isn't the only work I could have used, along with its derivatives. Gobshite, bletherskate, pustule, etc could have been used to the same effect.
We have Muslim students here. I asked one why she wore a headscarf (she was doing a project in my lab) and she said it was for her religion - it asked for modesty. Hmmm, said I, so why the tight tight clothing? I can practically see your hair folicles!
I still stand by my feelings on immigration. It doesn't matter what your genes say you are, once you move, you try and integrate into the society. The British, French, Dutch, etc are still labelled as cruel colonists for their taking over a culture - why is this any different?
Other Comments by Goldy
29. Comment #77783 by Duff on October 10, 2007 at 1:54 pm
People of all religious superstitions should be allowed to wear all the religious paraphernalia they can possibly muster and then the rest of us should point at them and laugh. Maybe after a while they will catch on that their iron age silliness is exactly that.Other Comments by Duff
30. Comment #77785 by Goldy on October 10, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Just so I don't appear to contradict myself across threads, yes, immigrants should integrate. But the indiginous population have to accept them as one of their own too. Nothing drives immigrants towards self poisoning enclaves than oppression and apartheid. Do others not also think that more ex-Muslim athiests would appear if they were seen as equal members of society as opposed to brown Muslim boys and girls? Certainly the BNP and its ilk would have less ammo and less effect on both immigrant and indiginous populations.Does take 2 to tango, I know, but if 1 invites the other to dance, then dance they can.
Other Comments by Goldy
31. Comment #77800 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 10, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Arise, and follow me, and I will make you fishers of fuckwits.......http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/emblems.html
Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys
32. Comment #77801 by Veronique on October 10, 2007 at 3:52 pm
31. Comment #77800 by prettygoodformonkeysTerrific!! I have been wanting some of these emblems for ages:-).
Scrolled down the page - I think they are wonderful. Thanks so much:-)
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
33. Comment #77810 by the izz on October 10, 2007 at 4:44 pm
While I find the hijab intellectually offensive banning it is analogous to banning teachers from wearing high heals because they deliberately hobble a women, making her less capable and more dependent on men. Other Comments by the izz
34. Comment #77813 by Matt7895 on October 10, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I quite liked the hooked fish emblem. Other Comments by Matt7895
35. Comment #77821 by Goldy on October 10, 2007 at 5:45 pm
High heels? Ooooh, Health and Safety would have a field day with those!Other Comments by Goldy
36. Comment #77823 by Eric Blair on October 10, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Goldy wrote :Just so I don't appear to contradict myself across threads, yes, immigrants should integrate. But the indiginous population have to accept them as one of their own too. Nothing drives immigrants towards self poisoning enclaves than oppression and apartheid. Do others not also think that more ex-Muslim athiests would appear if they were seen as equal members of society as opposed to brown Muslim boys and girls? Certainly the BNP and its ilk would have less ammo and less effect on both immigrant and indiginous populations.
Does take 2 to tango, I know, but if 1 invites the other to dance, then dance they can.
Well put.
Freelance Cynic wrote:
Would you please stop the Quebec bashing? It always annoys me to no end when my fellow canadians indulge in it, either due to prejudice or ignorance... we should know better.
My criticism of Quebeckers isn't arbitrary -- the thread is about Quebec and I think context always helps.
I'll admit I have some bias, as an anglophone born and raised in la belle province. But je me souviens, too.
Quebec, or at least Quebecois society, has gone from being a near-feudal state in thrall to the Catholic church to a modern industrial and formally secular democracy. That's quite an achievement but to get there it's taken a strong, centralized bureaucracy guided by "social engineers." The excesses of this recommendation reflect this intellectual approach.
The Quebecois' ongoing pursuit of "sovereignty" reveals a proud nationalism with tendencies toward both self-confidence that allows them to stand alone in the world, and suspicion of "others," those who do not trace their roots to the original habitants.
This recommendation, as I said, may appeal to suspicious, nativist elements mainly in rural Quebec and so-called progressive technocrats.
(In this respect, Quebecois aren't very different from some groups in Europe, who share a similar idea of "nationalism." For their part, English-Canadians may also be suspicious of ethnic minorities, too, but because they themselves are so diverse nativist sentiments don't run too deep.
But ultimately, my feeling is the majority of Quebeckers, in their wisdom, will reject it.
EB
Other Comments by Eric Blair
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"Who needs Satan when you have a God like this?"
Robert M. Price
Other Recommended Reading
Evolution
Jean-Baptiste de Panafieu
Infidel
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Conciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #77615 by 82abhilash on October 9, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Ban it all, ban it all - laicite is the hope for the free french everywhere.Other Comments by 82abhilash