Quebec Status Of Women Minister Isabelle Charest Says Hijab Is A Symbol Of Oppression
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Quebec's new minister responsible for the status of women says the Muslim hijab is a symbol of oppression.
Speaking to reporters after being named to the portfolio Tuesday, Isabelle Charest said the Muslim head scarf does not correspond to her values and is not a way for women to flourish in society.
She said women should not wear the garment. She objects to it because it represents a command for women to cover themselves, she said.
Her statements come as the Coalition Avenir Quebec government prepares to introduce legislation prohibiting public servants in positions of authority — including teachers — from wearing visible religious symbols including the hijab, kippa and turban.
Pierre Arcand, interim leader of the Opposition Liberals, said today that tolerance and calm are needed in the debate prompted by the Coalition government. He said his party favours freedom of choice.
Charest, a former Olympic short track speed skater, was elected for the first time on Oct. 1. She is also junior education minister.
Tags
Who is online
99 visitors
Oppression?
Religion defined.
Then Isabelle Charest doesn't have to wear one. See how that works? But if someone else wants to wear one, let them.
All I can say is 'wow'. Women don't wear kippas (yarmulkes) or turbans...so this is more than an attempt at 'freeing' women. It is an attempt to suppress visible religious beliefs.
I totally agree with the minister.
All of the Islamic "rules" regarding "womanly modesty" are based on the notion that men cannot control themselves, and therefore... women must change their behavior...
That's dubious in 7th Century Arabia... and downright ridiculous today.
Submission is imprinted on little girls. As adults, they then speak of "religious choice". Wrong.
Just another case of some, telling others, what they should and shouldn't do. I try to err on the side of liberty for this sort of thing. Forcing it one way or the other is equally wrong.
We need to learn to live and let live with things like this IMO. Otherwise there is no hope for everyone's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
A few years back, when France was debating a ban on the full-body hijab, the most vociferous proponents of the ban were Muslim women.
They had lived its oppression.
Are they really free in France?
Why would one remain in a situation they didn't agree with so vociferously?
That is not healthy or logical.
I guess I didn't explain very well.
The women were a group called Ni putes ni soumises. (Neither whores nor submissives, referring to the labels too often applied to Muslim women who do not obey their men.) They dressed as they pleased, including no headwear.
The ban has been law for quite a few years now.
I see ...... libert'e French style i suppose eh?
Yes.
The relative importance of various rights is interpreted differently in different societies.
Americans are accustomed to ceding their freedoms to church authorities. The French are vehemently secular.
Not sure what Americans you're talking about. I cede exactly none of my chosen freedoms to "church authorities." Not one i can think of that matters to me.
Of course i don't worry about things like a bakery that won't bake a cake for me. I just move on and find another one who will.
Pushing one's will on those who don't want it is a slippery slope. A slippery slope indeed. A practice hardly reserved for religions alone.
The French government is a case in point for that.
Do you agree with tax-exempt status for churches?
Do you agree with fundamentalists writing abortion law?
Lol .... on to the next thing eh Bob?
I can argue both sides of that one but ...... right now a lot of homeless people are very thankful for the churches that are sheltering and feeding them.
So yeah, a lot of good does come from it where i live.
I guess I see that as a fundamental difference between you and me. Equal rights are important to me - for everyone. The rationale you used was brought up by those who opposed the Civil Rights movement, and it was immoral bullshit then too.
As I said... American are accustomed to ceding their freedoms to church authorities.
As at Georgetown...
France has existed as a recognizable political entity for well over a thousand years. There has been time to win a few, to lose a few. The French look back a bit farther than Americans do.
As far as you wish.
The important date for most Americans is October 19, 1781, at Yorktown, Virginia, when a British army, blockaded by a French fleet, was defeated by a French army... leading to American independence.
The Brits may remember a certain Norman bastard. The language we're writing is his doing.
Most of Europe remembers - not too fondly - a Corsican. He remodeled the continent definitively. His law code is still the basis for many countries' codes.
There have been ups and downs.
Your point?
Interesting question. Why don't you dress a list?
Bullshit and SCOTUS agrees.
Here's where you say SCOTUS is biased because they went against your preconceived notions of what is fair and what is not.
I can tell you what the real difference between you and i is. I'm for liberty and freedom of choice for everyone, in all possible cases. You are as well but only when it fits your preferred narrative. Big difference.
Lol again. Nothing ceded but much gained buy the homeless At least someone is taking care of them.
By contrast I've been to Paris. Yes, the city of light. I saw how the French take care of their homeless. They leave them to sleep on the street. Very secular, very humane.
And you have the temerity to talk about the US in this regard. Hilarious!
I split my time between my two countries. I know both fairly well.
I have no doubt at all, that being poor in America is far worse.
Granted, my time in France was limited but the homelessness and pandering on the streets was abhorrent when i was there.
From what i saw it's just as bad or worse in Paris France as most big cities in the USA but by all means.
Lets debate the minutia about how much worse "bad" can be. /S
Better idea: let's look at whether the situation in each country is acceptable, without reference to any other.
Is it acceptable for the wealthiest nation in the history of the world to have homeless, undernourished poor?
For someone who sez they have lived in France for so long its pretty strange that you seem to have lost the ability to recognize sarcasm ..... even with the /s
Certainly not but its just not quite that simple is it? Otherwise France, one of the oldest established nations on earth would have already figured it out.
Right?
Actually, yes! It is that simple.
So if its so simple, why hasn't France fixed it after what ..... 1200 years?
France must be really bad at this. Clearly much worse than the USA. We're a baby by time comparison.
Your fixation on France is unhealthy, you know.
Nope, not fixated on France in the least. However i admit, i do tend to fixate on hypocrisy whenever it rears its ugly head.
Therefore, i end up in conversations like this.
C'est la vie as the wheel turns around and around on NT ......
Ahhhhhhh.......A world without religion..... Imagine how much further ahead humanity would be than we are today.
( Yes, I did! I pulled the pin on that grenade! )
Only about 1500 years ahead of where we are now.
Given mankind's desire to kill each other we would likely have found other reasons to kill instead of who has the best god and who that God demands that we subjugate.
When I taught the younger grades, I used to read my classes this short story called "Tusk, Tusk". Bottom line, humans are very tribal like our cousins, the chimp.