Quebec tramples religious freedoms as Canadian freemen dither

[arayder]

Freemen on the land don’t seem to know what to do as the province of Quebec effectively tramples the religious freedom of Muslim women.

The newly passed Bill 62 which forbids anyone from receiving or giving a public service with their face covered wearing face coverings. Effectively making impossible for Muslim women wearing face coverings to serve as doctors, nurses, teachers or even ride a city bus.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/10/18...ceive-services

Anyone channeling Rosa Parks yet?

Yet the freeman crowd seems confused about the freedoms they have yammered about for years.

To their credit some freemen (even when convenient the double talking Robert Menard) see Bill 62 for the tyranny it is. But some of the freeman crowd can’t stop whining that the law should be applied to police officers wearing masks.

Quote:

Paul Fiola: IMO, at least they believe what they believe enough to fight for it.
Robert Menard: But not enough to allow others to fight against it in an equal manner.

Quote:

Robert Menard: . . .these masks are religious garb that provide no tactical benefits or increased safety. Their sole purpose is to hide the identity of the 'priests'. . . .I am personally far more concerned about [the law’s] armed and dangerous enforcers than I am a humus loving niqāb wearer.

Quote:

Pawel Fryga: **** everybody's religion. Braindead.

Quote:

Chris Carter: first of all **** islam. it's a piece of **** doctrine, intentions, claims and practices wise.

wearing niqab isn't an indication of a free society.

unintended consequences=wanna bet that many many hundreds of non-muslim females and perhaps even males r gunna flood into Quebec, wear niqab and force the police and courts to put up or shut up.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/robert.menard.52


So where were freemen and the freeman brain trust when this law was proposed years ago?

Do freemen have any idea that their decades long trashing of constitutional law as fantasy negates their calls that Muslim women to be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights?

Why is Menard allowing his Facebook page to be used as a forum for anti-Muslim hate speech?

[theprestige]

It is a longstanding western tradition that masked citizens are no citizens at all, but rather enemies of society.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It is a longstanding western tradition that masked citizens are no citizens at all, but rather enemies of society.

Well, aside from the Lone Ranger. Duh.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by arayder

Freemen on the land don’t seem to know what to do as the province of Quebec effectively tramples the religious freedom of Muslim women.

The newly passed Bill 62 which forbids anyone from receiving or giving a public service with their face covered wearing face coverings. Effectively making impossible for Muslim women wearing face coverings to serve as doctors, nurses, teachers or even ride a city bus.

Strange. I understand the ID picture rule, as we need to be able to recognise people from their pictures, but not this.


...on the other hand I wonder how "free" Muslim women are to wear the veil, but that's a different discussion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just to play devil's advocate, what is the police officer to do when they pull over a person whose face is completely covered and the license picture is the same? How is a clerk supposed to check if you are the person presenting the credit card and you are asked for your driver's license?

There are going to be times when two peoples' rights conflict and both cannot be accommodated.

Maybe the law goes too far, maybe not. There might be some area for debate. But the idea this is a clear cut case of religious freedom is debatable.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

... and the license picture is the same?

The point is, that doesn't happen. They show their face for the picture, and if they actually need to establish their ID for a legitimate purpose. Claims to the contrary are just right-wing propaganda. Read any of the articles about this issue, and you'll see Muslim women saying exactly this.

This law and its ilk are nothing more than racist pandering to the racist parts of our society.

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by Horatius

The point is, that doesn't happen. They show their face for the picture, and if they actually need to establish their ID for a legitimate purpose. Claims to the contrary are just right-wing propaganda. Read any of the articles about this issue, and you'll see Muslim women saying exactly this.

This law and its ilk are nothing more than racist pandering to the racist parts of our society.

This.

And why this law needs to be struck down - by the courts.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

This.

And why this law needs to be struck down - by the courts.

My guess is advocacy groups will find a legal test case in which a sympathetic Muslim woman loses a job or is denied a bus ride in the cold and trot the case before the public who will say "What were we thinking? This is sweet kid trying to do good in the world."

Public option will turn and the politicians will buckle.

[dudalb]

I agree the state should not promote religion, period,but it seems to me this bill is going way too far in the other direction and is de facto discriminating against religious believers.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Horatius

The point is, that doesn't happen. They show their face for the picture, and if they actually need to establish their ID for a legitimate purpose. Claims to the contrary are just right-wing propaganda. Read any of the articles about this issue, and you'll see Muslim women saying exactly this.

This law and its ilk are nothing more than racist pandering to the racist parts of our society.

I don't see a reference to the current exception in the OP link.

A link would be nice.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Well, aside from the Lone Ranger. Duh.

Him, too. But masked vigilantism is another longstanding American tradition.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why is this thread in the CT forum? I had trouble finding it.

Here is a link to some pros and cons about banning burkas and according to the site, pro and con are running 50:50 as opinions.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-burkas-be-banned

I have mixed feelings from, surely we should allow religious freedom, to, if banning burkas (just the full face covering) helps advance women's rights, maybe we shouldn't take these women's word for it they freely choose to act like slaves. After all, like indoctrination in many religious groups, there are sometimes when it goes too far. In this case girls are indoctrinated to believe they are owned by men. That is not religious freedom, it is oppression.

Don't attack me for posting the adversarial opinion here, I am on the fence. There are pros and cons. I just want to make it clear this is not necessarily some right wing oppression of Muslims.

[Halcyon Dayz]

Purdah^WP is complex issue.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz

Purdah^WP is complex issue.

Indeed.

Quote:

Purdah was rigorously observed under the Taliban in Afghanistan, where women had to observe complete purdah at all times when they were in public.

There is clearly a line, in Western culture it would be with the woman saying she freely chooses Purdah (or whatever name you want to give it).

Suppose that woman were brainwashed since early childhood? Too bad, tough luck, we are all about freedom to choose so indoctrinated choice counts as choice?

How about the woman who would choose not to wear a burka but she can't go against her source of support, her husband and/or parents?

How do you sift through the chaff and assure you aren't ignoring the wheat?

It's not possible.

So to comes down to deciding, impose on religious freedom or sacrifice the indoctrinated and overpowered?

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Indeed.

There is clearly a line, in Western culture it would be with the woman saying she freely chooses Purdah (or whatever name you want to give it).

Suppose that woman were brainwashed since early childhood? Too bad, tough luck, we are all about freedom to choose so indoctrinated choice counts as choice?

How about the woman who would choose not to wear a burka but she can't go against her source of support, her husband and/or parents?

How do you sift through the chaff and assure you aren't ignoring the wheat?

It's not possible.

So to comes down to deciding, impose on religious freedom or sacrifice the indoctrinated and overpowered?

A) can we test a choice to tell the difference between indoctrinated or based on life experiences?

B) the idea of support is really weird. This make a government role in maintaining a veil of ignorance over parties so one party doesn't revoke support.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Suppose that woman were brainwashed since early childhood? Too bad, tough luck, we are all about freedom to choose so indoctrinated choice counts as choice?

Well, if we're going to legislate religious beliefs and practices based on whether or not the person was "brainwashed since early childhood", then we might as well ban religion outright. Because, frankly, while mainstream Christian brainwashing may be milder than Islamic brainwashing, it's far more prevalent in our society, and thus far more likely to end up becoming the law of the land in Canada.

A few dozen Muslim women in Quebec who wear a veil simply cannot have the same impact as, say, thousands of anti-abortion Christians.

And that's why we want to keep the state out of it.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Why is this thread in the CT forum? I had trouble finding it.

My idea was to point out that the self-proclaimed freedom loving freemen who have backed conspiracy theories from the birth bond to societies of conspiratorial judges and more are now in league with Muslim haters in Quebec to destroy the religious liberties of Muslim women.

Since the OP a segment of the freeman subculture has gone on a vicious anti-Muslim rant.

I thought it was/is an interesting and telling hypocrisy.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Well, if we're going to legislate religious beliefs and practices based on whether or not the person was "brainwashed since early childhood", then we might as well ban religion outright. Because, frankly, while mainstream Christian brainwashing may be milder than Islamic brainwashing, it's far more prevalent in our society, and thus far more likely to end up becoming the law of the land in Canada.

Not only religion, but secular beliefs and traditions as well.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Not only religion, but secular beliefs and traditions as well.

Yeah, but I don't want to ban those, and since we seem to have decided that basing our laws on our own pet prejudices is acceptable, I'm gonna say, screw the Christians, I want to be in charge!

Hey, they started it!

[Butter!]

Delete - nevermind, answered.

[BadBoy]

In France this was about freedom not to wear. Or at least that was how it was framed.

I'm on the fence. what we don't want is a sub culture that oppresses women's rights. There are many other issues similar to this. For example in the UK faith based schools must teach evolution to ensure the rights of children to get a good education. Then there is the issue of forced marriages and genital mutilation. To suggest this is all far right propaganda smells a bit of left wing apologetics as it does happen.

As for banning face coverings to protect freedoms for Muslim women, I feel it probably would backfire. Perhaps there should be a law whereby men can be prosecuted for forcing women to wear them.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by BadBoy

In France this was about freedom not to wear. Or at least that was how it was framed.

I'm on the fence. what we don't want is a sub culture that oppresses women's rights. There are many other issues similar to this. For example in the UK faith based schools must teach evolution to ensure the rights of children to get a good education. Then there is the issue of forced marriages and genital mutilation. To suggest this is all far right propaganda smells a bit of left wing apologetics as it does happen.

As for banning face coverings to protect freedoms for Muslim women, I feel it probably would backfire. Perhaps there should be a law whereby men can be prosecuted for forcing women to wear them.

If people have freedom and the free will to choose their religion then it follows they have the right to choose systems of belief some of us might not see as proper or even fair.

Individuals are also free to reject previous beliefs and move on to new ways of thinking and believing which might be even more strange to the mainstream.

But either way, I think, it's none of the state's business.

What I find hypocritical (and so pointed out in the OP) are the freemen on the land who claim the state has no authority over non-consenting individuals and then sit on their hands while the province of Quebec tramples the religious liberties Muslim women. Women who never once gave the province the authority to prescribe religious practices.

If you visit Rob Menard's Facebook page and scroll down you can be treated to Bobby and his freemen buddies parroting alt. right BS about preserving Canadian culture and heaping grade school insults on Muslim women.

They are hypocrites, pure and simple.

[BadBoy]

Originally Posted by arayder

If people have freedom and the free will to choose their religion then it follows they have the right to choose systems of belief some of us might not see as proper or even fair.

Individuals are also free to reject previous beliefs and move on to new ways of thinking and believing which might be even more strange to the mainstream.

But either way, I think, it's none of the state's business.

What I find hypocritical (and so pointed out in the OP) are the freemen on the land who claim the state has no authority over non-consenting individuals and then sit on their hands while the province of Quebec tramples the religious liberties Muslim women. Women who never once gave the province the authority to prescribe religious practices.

If you visit Rob Menard's Facebook page and scroll down you can be treated to Bobby and his freemen buddies parroting alt. right BS about preserving Canadian culture and heaping grade school insults on Muslim women.

They are hypocrites, pure and simple.

I think if Muslim women want to wear them then that's fine.

I think there has to be protections though for people who find themselves at the arse end of a bad ideology.

Ordinary working people in the UK have fought and died for centuries for their basic rights. here

The right for an individual to not be forced to wear a Niqab, Hibab or Jibab is just as important for their right to wear one. It is a difficult subject that has no easy answers but individuals must be protected against bad ideological doctrines that takes away from their individual freedoms, and much of the current left I think miss this point due to miss appropriated political correctness with accusing cries of racism. What is worse is the right wing thugs that push the issue but for all the wrong reasons (by wanting to take away freedoms rather than give them) which just muddies the water and makes rational dialog all the more difficult.

I'm pretty left wing. But I am also an Atheist and a secularist and want to ensure the state I live in is kept apart from religious tentacles that want to keep imposing their values on the rest of us. I support anyone's right to be a Muslim a Christian or anything else, but I also support their right not to be, or to be an ex-Muslim or a Muslim who wants to wear whatever they damn well please.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by BadBoy

The right for an individual to not be forced to wear a Niqab, Hibab or Jibab is just as important for their right to wear one. It is a difficult subject that has no easy answers but individuals must be protected against bad ideological doctrines that takes away from their individual freedoms, and much of the current left I think miss this point due to miss appropriated political correctness with accusing cries of racism. ....


I'm pretty left wing. But I am also an Atheist and a secularist and want to ensure the state I live in is kept apart from religious tentacles that want to keep imposing their values on the rest of us. I support anyone's right to be a Muslim a Christian or anything else, but I also support their right not to be, or to be an ex-Muslim or a Muslim who wants to wear whatever they damn well please.

Yes, and the point is, in Canada, they already have the right to refuse to wear such things, and at least some protections from the Government should they be subject to abuse by those trying to force them to wear them.

The problem is, like so many other domestic abuse situations, it can be hard to prosecute offenders if the victims aren't willing/able to cooperate, and press charges. However, marginalizing the victims still further by denying them basic services like bus rides doesn't do anything to actually make their lives better, it just makes it that much harder for them to interact with the larger Canadian culture in a sufficient enough manner that they would feel empowered enough to make this choice for themselves.

Imagine the mindset of a recent immigrant woman, being told by her family, "You must wear this, to protect you from the Barbarian Hordes of these unwashed infidels!", and being told by her neighbors, "Hey, this is Canada, you don't have to wear that if you don't want to!" She then sees the provincial government passing a law that requires her to stop wearing it in public lest she be denied every service that all others in the province take for granted, and this law is quite clearly deliberately aimed at Muslims, and not Chritians.

Whose opinion is she most likely to believe then, her family's or her neighbors'?

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Imagine the mindset of a recent immigrant woman, being told by her family, "You must wear this, to protect you from the Barbarian Hordes of these unwashed infidels!", and being told by her neighbors, "Hey, this is Canada, you don't have to wear that if you don't want to!" She then sees the provincial government passing a law that requires her to stop wearing it in public lest she be denied every service that all others in the province take for granted, and this law is quite clearly deliberately aimed at Muslims, and not Chritians.

Whose opinion is she most likely to believe then, her family's or her neighbors'?

In Jefferson's writings on religious freedom he talks about how people being forced into or out of a religious practice will tend to give lip service (my words, not his) to the required practice and then going on to practice their religion as they please be it in private or in some alternate way in public.

In this case i could see Muslim women covering themselves and circumventing the law by, for instance, finding friends and colleagues at work or in the public sector who will cover for them (pun intended) when they break the law. . . as in . . . "No officer, she had her face uncovered when she came into the clinic. I am sure off it."

Maybe they could get cold and flu masks which they use when they are required to uncover and when confronted they pull out a doctor's order they got from sympathetic doctor saying the mask is required for their health.

One could think of a dozen ways around the law.

[fuelair]

Quebec tramples religious freedoms as Canadian freemen dither
But, do they dither with her on a zither ?????????

[BStrong]

There are many business here in the U.S that will deny service to individuals wearing a motorcycle helmet.

[arayder]

It seems Menard and the World Freeman Society have inexplicably gone off on a childish Niqab, immigrant, woman bashing tear.

Scroll down and try not to gag:https://www.facebook.com/robert.menard.52

As if he's lost his last bit of sense the director of the world freeman society is now reposting info-wars propaganda claiming that the Texas church shooter was an antifa member who vowed to start a civil war.

[arayder]

After claiming that Quebec was perfectly justified in using statutes to trash religious freedom by forbidding Muslim women from wearing face coverings Bobby "I-can't-remember-what I-believe" Menard says that governments can't even make law.

From his Facebook page:

Quote:

Robert Menard
If government makes the law, then the law did not exist prior to the government, in which case the government is not being formed according to law.
If law is pre-existing, then a government may be lawfully formed, however the rules it makes cannot be considered to the ‘The Law’.
The law is that which allows the formation of governments, not the rules crafted by governments.
The rules they make are given the force of law, or considered to be law, by the governed, due to their consent.

I suspect the answer to these contradictory arguments is that Bobby, in his heart of hearts, believes there is one law for him and another for people of which he disapproves.

[Whip]

Originally Posted by arayder

After claiming that Quebec was perfectly justified in using statutes to trash religious freedom by forbidding Muslim women from wearing face coverings Bobby "I-can't-remember-what I-believe" Menard says that governments can't even make law.

From his Facebook page:



I suspect the answer to these contradictory arguments is that Bobby, in his heart of hearts, believes there is one law for him and another for people of which he disapproves.

he once again opens a Pandors'a box where it comes to his 'legit' business he's alleged started.

[arayder]

It's possible Bobby's recent post spewing his self-serving version of government's authority to make law stems from some brush he's had with government or a governmental agency, possibly in relation to his newest pretend venture.

Since Bobby's never made anything or done anything he doesn't realize that the effort entrepreneurs put into making something work is far, far greater than the effort needed to follow governmental regulations. Consequently grousing about having to fill out forms and such is grossly out of character for the role of the successful entrepreneur and only makes him look like a phony.

Sort of like Marshal Dillon whining over a paper cut.

But what Bobby doesn't seem to realize is that he is arguing that a government he says has no authority to make new law somehow has the power to control religious practices.

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It is a longstanding western tradition that masked citizens are no citizens at all, but rather enemies of society.

Unless in the service of the Government. It's the underlying theme of the Super Powers Registration Act (RSC 1993 c.99) and its US copycat legislationSuperhero Registration Act

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

It's possible Bobby's recent post spewing his self-serving version of government's authority to make law stems from some brush he's had with government or a governmental agency, possibly in relation to his newest pretend venture.

Since Bobby's never made anything or done anything he doesn't realize that the effort entrepreneurs put into making something work is far, far greater than the effort needed to follow governmental regulations. Consequently grousing about having to fill out forms and such is grossly out of character for the role of the successful entrepreneur and only makes him look like a phony.

Sort of like Marshal Dillon whining over a paper cut.

But what Bobby doesn't seem to realize is that he is arguing that a government he says has no authority to make new law somehow has the power to control religious practices.

Which religious mandate is being 'trampled on' here? Be specific.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

Which religious mandate is being 'trampled on' here? Be specific.

The OP explains my point, I think.

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

The OP explains my point, I think.

If it did I wouldn't have asked. Your OP assumes that a cultural (and in the West, relatively recent) tradition is mandated by religion. I'm asking for evidence of that.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by baron

Which religious mandate is being 'trampled on' here? Be specific.

Where does it say that this is a religious "mandate"? It's a religious practice, akin to saying "Merry Christmas" or wearing a crucifix. Neither of those are religious "mandates", but you can be damn sure Christians would pop a blood vessel if any ever tried to ban them.

[baron]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Where does it say that this is a religious "mandate"? It's a religious practice, akin to saying "Merry Christmas" or wearing a crucifix. Neither of those are religious "mandates", but you can be damn sure Christians would pop a blood vessel if any ever tried to ban them.

Saying 'Merry Christmas' isn't a religious practice. A crucifix is a religious symbol, clearly. A burqa is not, it is cultural. There are other differences too but I'm sure they're as obvious to you as they are to me.

[arayder]

Maybe I am mincing words, but the right to practice one's religion is not what I would call a "mandate", but rather an inalienable right.

My point is that Menard professes to hold individual freedom sacred and yet fails to defend the right of Muslim women to practice their religion as they see fit.

The hypocrisy seems to be lost on Bobby. I recall the time Bobby he the "story" that upon a courthouse official demanding that he remove the silly little fez he used to wear he claimed to have brilliantly successfully argued that the fez was a practice of his religion.

It seems to me that Menard thinks he has a right of make up a religious practice on the spur the moment yet Muslim women can't practice their religion.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

Saying 'Merry Christmas' isn't a religious practice. A crucifix is a religious symbol, clearly. A burqa is not, it is cultural. There are other differences too but I'm sure they're as obvious to you as they are to me.

Are you saying that the Quran does not instruct Muslim women to dress in a modest way?

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

Maybe I am mincing words, but the right to practice one's religion is not what I would call a "mandate", but rather an inalienable right.

My point is that Menard professes to hold individual freedom sacred and yet fails to defend the right of Muslim women to practice their religion as they see fit.

The hypocrisy seems to be lost on Bobby. I recall the time Bobby he the "story" that upon a courthouse official demanding that he remove the silly little fez he used to wear he claimed to have brilliantly successfully argued that the fez was a practice of his religion.

It seems to me that Menard thinks he has a right of make up a religious practice on the spur the moment yet Muslim women can't practice their religion.

You're still labouring under the falsehood that wearing a face covering is a religious mandate. And that's not the only misapprehension you have. Perhaps the most obvious is that the right to practice one's religion is an inalienable right. This is patently absurd and I can't imagine why you said it. That right only extends as far as the law restricts. A person who murders a homosexual, sells their daughter into slavery or beats up their neighbours for objecting to the odour of a sacrificial bull will find that protesting religious exemption won't help them much (although in Canada it's probably worth a try).

Originally Posted by arayder

Are you saying that the Quran does not instruct Muslim women to dress in a modest way?

No. I know what the Koran instructions on account of having read it. Most women dress in modest ways but only a tiny minority cover their head and face.