Canadian Muslim Congress - ban the Burka

Post Reply New Topic

wow i had no idea all this was even going on! the irony of the two positions is not lost on me. i've seen poeple wearing the full gear in my city, but they are usually newcomers to canada.

If its moderate muslims themselves who are against it, it might beg the question of perhaps what aspect of this they get that the libertarians are missing?

The issue of the burqa is a serious one that needs to be rectified immediately. Why can't I cover my face in public areas without police interference?
Control. It renders camera systems that aren't fitted with gait recognition technology meaningless, though that might be confounded a little through the liberal application of loose fitting cloth to a small extent. This is of course unless your movements are tracked continually, which itself is quite possible through your phone's gps or by mast, but needs individual investigation instead of just getting video feeds from a whole country. street to street, regardless of susicion, without consulting the public. This gets noticed, rarely:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/1 ... nce-scheme

It's your right to cover your face, or any part of yourself if you want to in private and public. Privately owned areas are a different matter, banks or other privately owned institutions can make their own rules about who can enter. Forcing people to wear the veil is wrong, and an issue that might be addressed, not banning the clothing itself, that's even worse, as it's a policy revoking rights instead of individuals doing so.

If people were forcing their wives to get tattoos, you'd jail the people forcing them, not shut down tattoo parlours.

I live in England. And I could gaurantee that if I went out walking down the street in the centre of town with a balaclava on I would be stopped by police and told to remove it. I cannot go into a bank or some bars with a hat on! People have been asked to take hoods of inside shops!

Yet we allow women to cover their whole heads with a burka because we must "respect their religion".

I am with Richard Dawkins on this. Why does religion demand so many concessions?

I reckon all western countries should have a law that requires the face to be visible in public at all times unless it is for health and safety reasons (like a motorbike helmet).

There are three separate issues here:

1) Private property
2) Public property with a view to exercising a right
3) Public property with a view to exercise a privilege

I am going to speak from a Canadian context (the one I know best), but many of the principles are readily extended to other legal systems.

I have absolutely no objection to rules, in both directions, on private property. A bank, a pub or a homeowner is free to compel a person to uncover their face, and a person under such a compulsion is free to leave the property in order to avoid the need to comply. Similarly, a mosque, a synagogue or a homeowner is free to compel a headcovering or a facecovering, with a similar freedom to exit on the part of the person so compelled.

I am a little more nuanced with 3). The exercise of a privilege, such as driving, taking a commercial conveyance (plane, train, taxi, public transit), is subject to reasonable limits that are demonstrably justifiable. Those limits with vary according to the degree of the intrusion and the public interest. Requiring a full face photograph for a driving license is a reasonable limit (according to the Supreme Court of Canada, Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony), as is requiring a driver to operate a vehicle with no obstruction of their vision or hearing. Air travellers are required to submit to a search of their person and their belongings, and if they wish not to be searched, they are free to not fly. We do not, however, impose the same burden on those travelling by train, by taxi or by public transit. I think it is possible to take a purposive, nuanced approach that arrives at a different requirement depending upon the privilege being exercised.

Finally, we come to the exercise of a right in public. Life, liberty and security of the person, freedom of expression and freedom of association are particularly relevant here. These rights are so fundamental to a free and democratic society that any infringement of them must demonstrate the most compelling of public interests. The discomfort of fellow citizens is not, in my respectful view, sufficient to meet this test.