|
to Jackorama
Re: Quebec judge wouldn't hear case of woman wearing hijabsaid by Jackorama:You have to remember that Quebec wants to be a distinct society. And a French-based society at that. If we ask, which nation in western Europe most strongly pushes a unitary national identity (and which is most secularist) it is France. I think that the judge was displaying a very French attitude. |
|
GuspazGuspaz MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC |
to jaberi
It's just more than Quebec is rather racist or intolerant when it comes to other religions. What the judge did is terrible, but it's the way a lot of people here feel.
That sort of discrimination is common. Just look at how the local soccer body banned turbans... and the government defended them wholeheartedly. Many people didn't understand why such intolerance wasn't perfectly fine, to the extent that the government itself was arguing in favour of the bigotry. |
|
BonezXBasement Dweller Premium Member join:2004-04-13 Canada |
BonezX
Premium Member
2015-Feb-28 11:11 pm
said by Guspaz:It's just more than Quebec is rather racist or intolerant when it comes to other religions. What the judge did is terrible, but it's the way a lot of people here feel. Quebec? Intolerant ? NEVER /sarcasm |
|
Nitra join:2011-09-15 Montreal 2 edits |
to jaberi
Re: Online campaign nets $20,000 for Quebec woman told to remove hijab in courtsaid by jaberi:Crowfunding to buy her a car......nothing like a pity party. And she's on welfare, with 3 kids. Maybe she should use the money to get off social assistance and not buy a new car. Crowd fund is over 30k now. |
|
AppleGuy Premium Member join:2013-09-08 Kitchener, ON
1 recommendation |
to jaberi
Re: Quebec judge wouldn't hear case of woman wearing hijabYou can see her face, not sure why the judge had an issue. |
|
|
to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:It's not a religious item. Depends who you talk to in the Muslim religion. Some say it is cultural, some say it is religious. What I don't get why do the women have to cover up, so they are not a sexual symbol and to avoid being looked at in manners where guys get turned on. yet guys can wear whatever they want, and girls can go gaga over them.. a little one sided. but anyhow |
|
|
said by LastDon:Depends who you talk to in the Muslim religion.
Some say it is cultural, some say it is religious. AFAIK there is a single mention of a veil being used on women in the Coran. The story in question involves a woman who complained that when she had to go outside to use the outhouse at night, she would get harassed by neighbors or men, so it was suggested that if women veiled themselves at night when going to the outhouse, they would avoid trouble. That's all. The hijab, niqab and burqa all stem from different interpretations of that story. And while most people in Canada are comfortable with the hijab, it's still used in the middle east as a symbol to reduce the social standing and status of women and establish male supremacy. Some argue that Arab women re-appropriated the hijab for themselves as a symbol of empowerment, which is puzzling. Would Jews ever bring back serial numbers as fashionable tattoos in an attempt to support Zionism? I rather doubt it. And yet, in spite of all this, the judge was in the wrong. There is no legal or judicial rationale that can excuse this. People have a right to freedom of religion even if they don't know their own very religion very well. That's probably true for most religious people though. |
|
|
to AppleGuy
quote:
A spokeswoman for the Court of Quebec said Friday it is standing by Marengos decision and the judge would not bow to public pressure.
Annie-Claude Bergeron repeated Friday that judges are masters of their courtroom and have the right to interpret the law and set the rules of the court as they see fit. |
|
1 recommendation |
said by jaberi:quote:
A spokeswoman for the Court of Quebec said Friday it is standing by Marengos decision and the judge would not bow to public pressure.
Annie-Claude Bergeron repeated Friday that judges are masters of their courtroom and have the right to interpret the law and set the rules of the court as they see fit. What a a load of bullshit. Judges do not have the right to ignore the constitution. |
|
sm5w2 Premium Member join:2004-10-13 St Thomas, ON |
to jaberi
For those that claim the hijab is not a requirement dicated by islam, just be aware that the woman in question did make some sort of statement (outside the court) that she wears it - because she's a muslim. If equating muslim and islam is correct, then it's been drilled into her by her parents, family, community, and religious leaders that as a woman she must wear it in public.
I'm a libertarian, and normally I would be very vocal in defending anyone's right to wear anything. But when someone is wearing something that they feel they are obligated by others to be forced to wear, then I have a problem with co-existing in a society where there are people that are forced to do things because of the whims of others.
Ask any hijab-wearing-woman this simple question: Do you feel that you have the right TO NOT WEAR the hijab?
If the answer is no, then how is our liberal, secular democratic society supposed to react or deal with that? Are we not supposed to be concerned when there are people among us that have, in some way, a diminished range of liberty or freedom? |
|
Nitra join:2011-09-15 Montreal |
Nitra
Member
2015-Mar-1 10:23 am
It also hasn't been touched on, but the judge in this case was female as well. Couldn't she have asked that the men be cleared from the courtroom if she had an objection to remove the hijab? Providing no men were present, it shouldn't have been an issue. |
|
Doonz (banned) join:2010-11-27 Beaumont, AB |
to jaberi
Meh,
I have a judge tell me to remove my ball cap before addressing him. Not sure why she thinks she special |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
Ian1 to Nitra
Premium Member
2015-Mar-1 10:29 am
to Nitra
said by Nitra:Couldn't she have asked that the men be cleared from the courtroom if she had an objection to remove the hijab? Providing no men were present, it shouldn't have been an issue. Could she have proposed a solution that would have made a routine traffic appearance take 20 times longer to process? Sure. And what if the only bailiffs in the court were male? If I were in court with a colander on my head, I think there's a large chance I would have been asked to remove it as well. She has strong ideas about appropriate dress in her courtroom. And she might well be a full-on bigot. I don't know. Whether I agree with her or not, it's her courtroom unless they remove that piece of discretion from judges. |
|
Nitra join:2011-09-15 Montreal |
Nitra
Member
2015-Mar-1 10:35 am
As long as she applies the same rules to everyone. As in, no crosses, no Kippah, no colanders, no burning crosses etc.
If she only applies this in the case of the hijab, I take issue with that, if the judge has kept her court secular entirely, that's her discretion. I would think that we would have heard about it already if she's excluded people from wearing crosses though. |
|
KardinalDei Gratina Regina Mod join:2001-02-04 N of 49th |
to sm5w2
said by sm5w2:But when someone is wearing something that they feel they are obligated by others to be forced to wear, then I have a problem with co-existing in a society where there are people that are forced to do things because of the whims of others.
Ask any hijab-wearing-woman this simple question: Do you feel that you have the right TO NOT WEAR the hijab? Whether one takes the cultural or religious angle of the reasoning behind wearing a headscarf, it's something that is part of her way of life. Everyone has the RIGHT to not follow the traditions of their family / ethnicity / religion -- it's a choice to follow them. I don't like being forced to drive at only 100km/h on a 400 series highway that CLEARLY is designed for more than that, but I follow the ways of society because I'm a part of it. If I choose to also follow cultural / religious / historical 'rules', then that's no different other than it's a different facet of the same diamond that makes up society as a whole. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Trolling
|
sm5w2 Premium Member join:2004-10-13 St Thomas, ON |
to Kardinal
Re: Quebec judge wouldn't hear case of woman wearing hijab> Everyone has the RIGHT to not follow the traditions of their > family / ethnicity / religion -- it's a choice to follow them.
I simply don't buy the argument that muslim woman truly, actually, have the ability to excercise the right to not wear the hijab in public. In Canada or any other western country. Not without the almost certain consequence of experience some sort of sanction or penalty from their spouse, parents, other family members, or members of their cultural community. |
|
|
to sm5w2
said by sm5w2: If equating muslim and islam is correct, then it's been drilled into her by her parents, family, community, and religious leaders that as a woman she must wear it in public. That's ignorantly wrong, presumably because you haven't interacted with independent Muslim women that have grappled with whether they're theologically mature enough to make the choice to veil (wear hijab), to show a greater devotion to God. Try and tell an intelligent woman that she's had such an idea 'drilled into her' by other people and you'll have a situation on your hands far worse than arguing with a western feminist on the topic of equality. said by sm5w2:Are we not supposed to be concerned when there are people among us that have, in some way, a diminished range of liberty or freedom? I expect the majority of Muslim women would feel that you're attempting to strip away their religious freedoms with such a question. |
|
|
|
to Nitra
usually a cross people were under clothing so it is not visible, unless they are wearing on there head? and their head is covered?
she didn't have a problem with the persons religion, she had a problem with wearing something on her head.
Same as hats and sun glasses,
She didn't say I have a problem with you being muslim, i have a problem with you wearing a hijab covering on your head..
A Kippah, would therefore qualify for the same rule if she were to be a judge again |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2015-Mar-1 12:24 pm
For some reason I get the feeling that if this woman was from one of the more conservative Christian denominations where women wear head coverings - yes, they exist - this would have never been an issue. |
|
|
said by Gone:For some reason I get the feeling that if this woman was from one of the more conservative Christian denominations where women wear head coverings - yes, they exist - this would have never been an issue. Agreed. |
|
PX Eliezer1 |
to LastDon
said by LastDon:usually a cross people were under clothing so it is not visible, unless they are wearing on there head? and their head is covered? Maybe there are different customs in your area. Some people do wear a cross under their shirt (especially men) but many people wear it over their clothing (especially women), in my experience. Also, I have never seen someone wearing a cross on their head. (??) |
|
|
said by PX Eliezer1:said by LastDon:usually a cross people were under clothing so it is not visible, unless they are wearing on there head? and their head is covered? Maybe there are different customs in your area. Some people do wear a cross under their shirt (especially men) but many people wear it over their clothing (especially women), in my experience. Also, I have never seen someone wearing a cross on their head. (??) sarcasm |
|
Doonz (banned) join:2010-11-27 Beaumont, AB |
to jaberi
Im sorry its the same thing as back in high school.
Boys could not wear hats in school. Girls could because it was part of their outfits. |
|
AsherN Premium Member join:2010-08-23 Thornhill, ON |
to LastDon
said by LastDon:She didn't say I have a problem with you being muslim, i have a problem with you wearing a hijab covering on your head..
A Kippah, would therefore qualify for the same rule if she were to be a judge again So observant Jews, Muslims and Sikhs can't have their cases heard in court? Just, wow. |
|
AsherN |
to TigerLord
said by TigerLord:Some argue that Arab women re-appropriated the hijab for themselves as a symbol of empowerment, which is puzzling. Would Jews ever bring back serial numbers as fashionable tattoos in an attempt to support Zionism? I rather doubt it. AAMOF, there is a movement among younger Jews to have their relatives' numbers tatooed on their arms to honour and remember their relatives. |
|
Doonz (banned) join:2010-11-27 Beaumont, AB |
to AsherN
said by AsherN:said by LastDon:She didn't say I have a problem with you being muslim, i have a problem with you wearing a hijab covering on your head..
A Kippah, would therefore qualify for the same rule if she were to be a judge again So observant Jews, Muslims and Sikhs can't have their cases heard in court? Just, wow. If I can't wear a ballcap in court No they cant |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON
1 recommendation |
to jaberi
What I think this boils down to is a simple matter of judicial discretion. We give judges that. It's the entire point of having judges. Just as some of them are going to err in points of law, they are going to make oddball decisions about court dress at times too. The freaking out over a single case of it is completely unwarranted.
Why should there be no discretion over courtroom attire exercised by the judge, when there is discretion allowed over the far more important matters?
Personally, I think this woman is courting fire here. Yeah, she got her name in the paper, and a free car by the looks of things, but this is still before the courts. I was surprised to learn that her 21 year old son with a suspended driver's license was asked to drive, by her, because she had a headache. Sounds to me like a judge could exercise some additional "discretion" and charge her with a criminal offense as well. |
|
AsherN Premium Member join:2010-08-23 Thornhill, ON |
to Doonz
You really can't see the difference between wearing a baseball cap because you feel like it and a religious obligation? It does not matter what your views on religion are, to them, it is an obligation. Period. |
|
AsherN
1 recommendation |
to Ian1
said by Ian1:What I think this boils down to is a simple matter of judicial discretion. We give judges that. It's the entire point of having judges. Just as some of them are going to err in points of law, they are going to make oddball decisions about court dress at times too. The freaking out over a single case of it is completely unwarranted.
Why should there be no discretion over courtroom attire exercised by the judge, when there is discretion allowed over the far more important matters?
Personally, I think this woman is courting fire here. Yeah, she got her name in the paper, and a free car by the looks of things, but this is still before the courts. I was surprised to learn that her 21 year old son with a suspended driver's license was asked to drive, by her, because she had a headache. Sounds to me like a judge could exercise some additional "discretion" and charge her with a criminal offense as well. I think it goes beyond that single case. It became a bigger issue when the Quebec justice system refused to admit that the decision was wrong. There has to be some level of discretion. A certain level of decorum should be maintained in the court room, but we're not talking about torn jeans here. We are talking about a religious head cover. The judge was wrong. You can't deny someone justice because of their religion. |
|