Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves

#31

Post by LifeLiverTransp »

currymj wrote: post #4

adding the crucifix ban is a ridiculous fig leaf, as there's no obligation to wear an enormous crucifix in any Christian sect that I know of. whereas there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban. the bill is obviously targeted at Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs. if there were any special dress requirements for mainstream Christian groups, these bills would never have been proposed.

That headscarf is there for one and one reason only. To shame other women. If the catholic church jumped out of the history books to demand the right for its believers to wear it in office- you would rightfully tell them no. Because what that scarf yells at all those who do not wear it, through the voice of all the "believers" is "harlet, wrench, slut". If that thing was pushed by the catholic church, or evangelicals, you would be on the barricades by now. But it is by a supressed minority? Well that minority is not supressed in over 40 countries. In fact its the majority there, and supresses anyone not wearing a headscarf. Want to see what happens if you do not wear a headscarf there?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/05/egypt-women-ra...

That machoism is very real in the middle east- and the headscarf is part of the dividing and conquering. Nothing less. Cause there is always the mother and saint who wears it and the "cheap" whores free to hunt who dont.

May be that for some, this clothing has already lost its symbolism, like the white-wedding dress lost the symbolism of virginity it once held for christianity. If it has no symbolic value, why make such a fuzz about wearing it at all?

But in that case, i rather be safe then sorry.

Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves

#32

Post by LifeLiverTransp »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #8
currymj wrote: post #4

adding the crucifix ban is a ridiculous fig leaf, as there's no obligation to wear an enormous crucifix in any Christian sect that I know of. whereas there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban. the bill is obviously targeted at Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs. if there were any special dress requirements for mainstream Christian groups, these bills would never have been proposed.

A Yarmulke/Kippah is not large by any reasonable standard. Seems like the bill is just trying to justify the headscarf ban.

Most jews dont wear the kippah in most countrys anyway, because its bound to attract harassment.

Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves

#33

Post by 0815test »

LifeLiverTransp wrote: post #31
currymj wrote: post #4

adding the crucifix ban is a ridiculous fig leaf, as there's no obligation to wear an enormous crucifix in any Christian sect that I know of. whereas there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban. the bill is obviously targeted at Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs. if there were any special dress requirements for mainstream Christian groups, these bills would never have been proposed.

That headscarf is there for one and one reason only. To shame other women. If the catholic church jumped out of the history books to demand the right for its believers to wear it in office- you would rightfully tell them no. Because what that scarf yells at all those who do not wear it, through the voice of all the "believers" is "harlet, wrench, slut". If that thing was pushed by the catholic church, or evangelicals…

> Because what that scarf yells at all those who do not wear it, through the voice of all the "believers" is "harlet, wrench, slut".

That's a problem with that religion-dominated subculture, not with the symbolism itself. The notion that women should be shamed for the mere act of wearing a particular piece of clothing shuch as a headscarf is just as toxic as the one you're reacting to in your comment.

Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves

#34

Post by LifeLiverTransp »

0815test wrote: post #33
LifeLiverTransp wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That headscarf is there for one and one reason only. To shame other women. If the catholic church jumped out of the history books to demand the right for its believers to wear it in office- you would rightfully tell them no. Because what that scarf yells at all those who do not wear it, through the voice of all the "believers" is "harlet, wrench, slut". If that thing was pushed by the catholic church, or evangelicals…

> Because what that scarf yells at all those who do not wear it, through the voice of all the "believers" is "harlet, wrench, slut". That's a problem with that religion-dominated subculture, not with the symbolism itself. The notion that women should be shamed for the mere act of wearing a particular piece of clothing shuch as a headscarf is just as toxic as the one you're reacting to in your comment.

It shouldnt matter. But that dream is for another paradise edition of earth yet to come.

Its really difficult to find out wether a piece of clothing was a personal choice or something chosen/force upon a person to define in and outgroups. Basically, it boils down to detecting a thought-crime against open society.

So why not agree on some middle ground. Transparent Headscarfs? Headscarfs made from hair-extensions? Something like that?

Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves

#35

Post by crooked-v »

LifeLiverTransp wrote: post #34
0815test wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because what that scarf yells at all those who do not wear it, through the voice of all the "believers" is "harlet, wrench, slut". That's a problem with that religion-dominated subculture, not with the symbolism itself. The notion that women should be shamed for the mere act of wearing a particular piece of clothing shuch as a headscarf is just as toxic as the one you're reacting to in your comment.

It shouldnt matter. But that dream is for another paradise edition of earth yet to come. Its really difficult to find out wether a piece of clothing was a personal choice or something chosen/force upon a person to define in and outgroups. Basically, it boils down to detecting a thought-crime against open society. So why not agree on some middle ground. Transparent Headscarfs? Headscarfs made from hair-extensions? Som…

> So why not agree on some middle ground. Transparent Headscarfs? Headscarfs made from hair-extensions? Something like that?

Are you intentionally trying to sound like you're writing a South Park episode, or is that accidental?

Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves

#36

Post by currymj »

LifeLiverTransp wrote: post #31
currymj wrote: post #4

adding the crucifix ban is a ridiculous fig leaf, as there's no obligation to wear an enormous crucifix in any Christian sect that I know of. whereas there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban. the bill is obviously targeted at Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs. if there were any special dress requirements for mainstream Christian groups, these bills would never have been proposed.

That headscarf is there for one and one reason only. To shame other women. If the catholic church jumped out of the history books to demand the right for its believers to wear it in office- you would rightfully tell them no. Because what that scarf yells at all those who do not wear it, through the voice of all the "believers" is "harlet, wrench, slut". If that thing was pushed by the catholic church, or evangelicals…

the law also targets male Jews and Sikhs, though, so the idea that it’s about liberating women doesn’t make much sense.

Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves

#37

Post by gerbilly »

I’m ashamed that so many of my people support such a stupid bill. (I’m French Canadian)

As far as I’m concerned people can wear whatever they want: hallowe'en costumes, huge onesies with bunny ears, headscarves whatever...

Ironically, all the teachers at my grade school wore headscarves (nuns) and that’s not that long ago...

Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves

#38

Post by LifeLiverTransp »

crooked-v wrote: post #35
LifeLiverTransp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldnt matter. But that dream is for another paradise edition of earth yet to come. Its really difficult to find out wether a piece of clothing was a personal choice or something chosen/force upon a person to define in and outgroups. Basically, it boils down to detecting a thought-crime against open society. So why not agree on some middle ground. Transparent Headscarfs? Headscarfs made from hair-extensions? Som…

> So why not agree on some middle ground. Transparent Headscarfs? Headscarfs made from hair-extensions? Something like that? Are you intentionally trying to sound like you're writing a South Park episode, or is that accidental?

You know what - seperation from society, aka the public plaza from any religion and attempts to impose religion like dogmas/rules/systems.

It really is the most easy way out. Nobody gets to errect his borderwalls of textile or lack thereof in main street. We vote on a standard, and thats it. That way all those warmongers steering the soupkitchen of hate cant warm on the heat of the debate. The only solution is not to play.

Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves

#39

Post by allengeorge »

As many other posters have noted this is a Quebec bill, and has (sadly) been a long time coming.

My personal opinion is that this is making a mountain out a molehill. And, I don’t think this is the right way to encourage integration (if anything, I suspect it’ll engender resentment, can’t prove it). I’m disappointed that the Quebec government pursued this.

Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves

#40

Post by philistine »

currymj wrote: post #4

adding the crucifix ban is a ridiculous fig leaf, as there's no obligation to wear an enormous crucifix in any Christian sect that I know of. whereas there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban. the bill is obviously targeted at Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs. if there were any special dress requirements for mainstream Christian groups, these bills would never have been proposed.

What about nuns? In Québec, education was a religious matter until the early 60s. Which meant some catholic schools required teachers to be nuns. When schooling became government-run back then, many nuns left their congregation when they could now teach in civilian clothes. This left a profound mark on Quebec's catholic population and its perception of itself.

I'm not saying it excuses or changes anything. But the fact of the matter is that at least in Quebec, there was a large group of Catholic women who abandoned their religious garbs to teach because they didn't have to be nuns to do so.

Post reply on HN