Wow – an excellent, well-reasoned post on Burkas, human rights, religious freedom, and politician’s duties on matters of this nature:
Edit: I shared Scary’s post on Reddit, which is always seems to stir up good debate.
There are many arguments in support of banning the burka that, at first blush, are convincing. The burka is not proscribed by the Koran or mainstream Islam. Many consider the garment to be symbolic of oppression; the woman within has no identity, no contact with the outside world. Some call it a “prison”, enslaving its wearer to her husband. These are an affront to the values of Western nations, Canada included.
None of these arguments, though, present a transgression of recognized human rights as long as burka fashion is voluntary. In other words, if someone wants to wear it, why shouldn’t she (or even he) be allowed to? More importantly, if someone truly feels that they have a religious duty to wear it, then we also risk trampling on another freedom, that of religion…
…Sarkozy has the right to condemn the Burka, even when speaking as the representative of the French people. I would even argue that he has the duty, since a vast majority find the practice to be repulsive. He should not, however, seek to use the powers of the state to compel women to dress a certain way in public, contrary to their religious beliefs…
…For that would be forcibly taking these women from the only prison they know, and in the process subjecting all of us to a bigger prison – that of the nanny-state.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
A young man is charged in Mississauga with arson at a townhouse complex. Along with the arson charges though he is also charged with “wearing a disguise”. With such a charge this logically means anyone hiding their identity might in fact be committing a crime, including burka wearers.
Also if I ran a bank, I’d make damn sure no burka wearers were allowed in. Too easy to commit robberies wearing this ‘religious’ outfit.
Thanks for the plug, Rod.
Mark, I would think that (disguise + crime) is treated the same way as (gun + crime), in that it’s not illegal but is aggravating enough to warrant a second charge.
i think a stake should be driven through the heart of anyone evil enough to think that a woman should be covered in a sack.
Mark + SF: I agree with SF on this one Mark. A crime committed with a firearm is treated differently than one without; crime with or without disguise should have the same consideration. I don’t think burkas, halloween masks, and balaclavas should be outlawed because they may be useable for crime. After all, so can kitchen knives, hatchets, baseball bats, and lead pipes.
Old White Guy: tell us how you really feel! Note: there are those out there who I’m sure feel similarly towards those who would deny women the choice to cover themselves in a sack.
Good thing you have freedom of conscience like the rest of us, old white guy!
Let them wear what they want on their own time. Keep them from banks polling booths and other such venues.
i think a stake should be driven through the heart of anyone evil enough to think that a woman should be covered in a sack.
And in Synagogues they segregate the sexes. So much for the equality of the sexes… So do we also ban being Jewish?
This debate feels more like a scary-Muslim-rant.
You cons always seem to be against people of color and it shows! There is much racism with you cons!!
CWTF: Agreed. These divisive issues really make clear the dividing lines.
“uber liberal”, have you read some of the comments here?
I think you are projecting your partisanship.
Care to add to the debate or is being a troll your way of participating?