Will this encourage more to call for the ban of the Hijab?

[J.J]

I assume since you occupy the moral high ground your position would surpass my professional knowledge...

 

[Nostix]

Examples? Links?

Examples? The liquor store down the street from me has about six signs posted, including such gems as "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service", "No large bags or backpacks allowed on the premises", "We reserve the right to check all bags", "No hats or face coverings may be worn inside the premises", "No groups of more than four persons will be allowed in the store during <School Hours>". It's not exactly a unique set-up.

The policy against hats and facial coverings is hardly a rarity. If you're going to demand irrefutable internet proof of such a common policy, I can safely say that it's a better use of my time to simply agree to disagree.

Choose to disbelieve at your leisure, it wasn't exactly a life-or-death point in the first place.

Edit: I lied. But only because it was so easy to find a supplier for the signs:

http://www.bankersonline.com/bankerstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1965

Edit 2: Oh what the hell, it's not like I'm doing anything interesting tonight anyways.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/02/no-hats-no-hoods-no-sunglasses-allowed-nc-bank
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/38239234.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/166943


Happy New Years, everyone!

 

[Michael OLeary]

Examples? The liquor store down the street from me has about six signs posted, including such gems as "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service", "No large bags or backpacks allowed on the premises", "We reserve the right to check all bags", "No hats or face coverings may be worn inside the premises", "No groups of more than four persons will be allowed in the store during <School Hours>". It's not exactly a unique set-up.

The policy against hats and facial coverings is hardly a rarity. If you're going to demand irrefutable internet proof of such a common policy, I can safely say that it's a better use of my time to simply agree to disagree.

Choose to disbelieve at your leisure, it wasn't exactly a life-or-death point in the first place.

Edit: I lied. But only because it was so easy to find a supplier for the signs:

http://www.bankersonline.com/bankerstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1965

ll I asked for was information. So, what you posted appears to be wrong in that you have found no specific published rules against balaclavas.  Thank you for taking the time to look for it and following up.


[Edited to correct reference to hijabs to balaclavas.]

 

[Nostix]

ll I asked for was information. So, what you posted appears to be wrong in that you have found no specific published rules against hijabs.  Thank you for taking the time to look for it and following up.

Who said anything about Hijabs?

The discussion was about balaclavas.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I assume since you occupy the moral high ground your position would surpass my professional knowledge...

I assumed you might have actually read the thread before joining in.

So, for you, and our viewers playing along at home, let's recap the story so far.

In the original post, George suggested that the use of the hijab by bank robbers might lead to renewed calls for it to be banned.

I then stated that balaclavas has similarly been used without leading to calls for banning, and that banning hijabs would probably not reduce crime

A few posts later Nostrix stated "there are numerous stores and banks which ban [balaclavas] from being worn on the premises".

After he did that, I asked for Examples? Links?, a fairly common request on these forums where we ask members to be prepared to back up their statements of alleged fact.

Since I entered this thread I have been attacked, not for taking a side on the issue, but for asking for more information.

Now, can you actually answer the question? Can you, or anyone, provide a link or source to one of these "numerous stores and banks" that ban balaclavas (or any other covering)? How about a photo of a posted set of rules? Anything?

If someone came here and said the Government had published new rules restricting gun owners, people would be all over them to provide a link, demanding information. Similarly, all I have done is ask for more information.  What was wrong about asking for information?

As you will now see, Nostix has returned and admitted he has not found the rules he suggested existed.


{Edited to correct error regarding mentions of hijabs vs balaclavas.]

 

[Michael OLeary]

Who said anything about Hijabs?

The discussion was about balaclavas.

My error on your comment, the original post and main focus of the thread has been about hijabs. 

 

[Nostix]

Then I will leave, hopefully having fully substantiated to your standards, my original comments regarding the phenomemon of banning such face coverings as balaclavas in certain banks and stores.

Have a Happy New Year.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Then I will leave, hopefully having fully substantiated to your standards, my original comments regarding the phenomemon of banning such face coverings as balaclavas in certain banks and stores.

Have a Happy New Year.

Actually, all you found was a sign for sale by a US company.  That does not establish that "numerous," or any, banks and stores are using them as corporate policy.

 

[Nostix]

Reposted from my previous post, will the apologies that you happened to read it before I got the second one in.


Edit 2: Oh what the hell, it's not like I'm doing anything interesting tonight anyways.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/02/no-hats-no-hoods-no-sunglasses-allowed-nc-bank
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/38239234.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/166943

Now, I'm praying that you're not going to somehow make the argument that we are so dissimilar from our Southern neighbors that this, along with my own sworn anecdotal statement, do not constitute sufficient plausibility for such a scenario in Canada.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Thank you. That is all I asked for.  Perhaps others will find Canadian examples. I was prepared to wait until such information was presented, apparently others decided that my question implied some sort of terrorist intent.

For all, I would be interested in seeing if any Canadian institutions do have any similar fixed (and enforced) rules.

 

[Nostix]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/10/01/15543416.html

Breaking my balls.  :christmas happy:

 

[Michael OLeary]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/10/01/15543416.html

Breaking my balls.  :christmas happy:

It's a beginning, but not enforced yet.

Compliance by customers is completely on a voluntary basis.

The article also notes:

This program is not the first of its kind.

Hundreds of banks across the U.S. have implemented a similar program to address an increase in bank robberies.

 

[Nostix]

If you seriously believe that no store owner ever does anything beyond what is reported in the popular media to the letter, then I think you will find your search for proof fruitless.

It is safe to say your requests for confirmation have quickly spiraled from "mildly inconvenient" into the absurd and semantic.

Good luck with that.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Good luck with that.

I am satisfied that your initial encompassing statement overstated the current situation although I am still open to the presentation (by anyone) of specific published rules by banks and stores on the topic.  I still uphold that there's no crime in asking the question, as some have seemed to want to infer.

 

[hugh19]

Coast capitol credit union here in Victoria will not allow any one in with hats or hoods on.

 

[Blackadder1916]

There have been a few controversies in the Prov of Quebec over the wearing of the hijab, among girls soccer players and passengers boarding Air Canada flights, as well as discussion in other provinces.  Will this latest criminal act, following on those events bring about a cry to ban the hijab as France has done?
. . .

If a minority really wants to promote a feeling of disapproval of their beliefs and customs, their use of some of those beliefs and customs in the commissioning of crimes is a good way to seek  this disapproval.  It may cause there to be a greater cry for the banning of the hijab, by an even larger number of people, with these criminal acts as a contributing factor that it is necessary.

It may be semantics, but to be accurate the recent legislation in France did not ban the "hijab" but prohibited the public wear of what are commonly known as the "niqab" and "burka".  Both of these latter garments incorporate a full or partial face covering.  The earlier prohibition against the use of the hijab in French public schools was the application of an existing (by decades/centuries) law against the display of any religious symbol in public schools.  But that's the problem when trying to describe items using terms from another language or culture.  How many south (well, far south) of the border would know what a "touque" or "balaclava" is if a Canadian were to want a "knit cap" or "ski mask"?

There is an explanation (with visual examples) of the various types of garments worn by Muslim women at this page http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10611398

I find it unlikely that the criminal referred to in the original article would be really concerned about backlash to any religious or ethnic group even if he was a member of that religious or ethnic group.  He's a bank robber, a profession not usually identified as ethical.  If he hadn't been wearing (improperly) the women's garments, he might just as well have shown up in a Santa Claus suit, or a nun's habit or any number of disguises.  That simple act, is in itself, contrary to the Criminal Code

351. . . .
Disguise with intent

(2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 351; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 48; 2008, c. 18, s. 9.

Though individuals dressed as Santa Claus, nuns, the Easter Bunny, the Village People, the Unknown Comic* and soldiers  have committed crimes when they were not the persons who they protrayed (I'm still suspicious about the Easter Bunny), there have been no calls to totally ban the use of those identifying items of dress.  Why then should hijabs be banned based on a few isolated incidents?

But this thread seemed to have veered off in its response to Michael's request for supporting data for a specific statement, which was, in itself, reasonable(?) (and a not unusual demand by those of us more pedantic types on this means).  While I don't have any links showing corporate policies about restricting access to their businesses by individuals wearing garments that obsure their identity, I have, on occasion, seen signs with such restrictions.  It has usually been smaller premises (convenience or liquor stores, nightclubs) and while it may be primarily to ensure that robbers can be IDed, it sometimes seems that it may be a partial attempt to limit the access of those who may be the less than preferred customers, i.e. youths, possible gang members. ([sarcasm]I have no problem with the state rounding up and interning those who wear hoodies, baseball caps backwards or to the side and especially pants so low that underwear is visible.[/sarcasm])  I don't often physically go into banks anymore, but I did have occasion shortly before Christmas to go to the bank.  There weren't any signs about dress restrictions but I do recall one Santa Claus and a women very stylishly wearing a hat and scarf who it would be difficult to identify because of their faces being covered.  I would have no problem picking out of a line-up the woman wearing the hajib who was also waiting to be served.


*For those who may be of a more recent generation the Unknown Comic's costume was a paper bag worn over the head.  I once served with someone (decades ago) who was robbed by someone wearing this disguise.  This sergeant was moonlighting in a 7-11, the offender entered the store and threatened him with a paper bag of poo.  The sergeant handed over the contents of the till IAW company policy.

 

[George Wallace]

The actions of the criminal in this case is only one instance that we see a controversy based on the hijab.  The question (Michael) is not that this criminal's actions may encourage more to call for the ban of the hijab, but that it is an action that contributes along with a series of incidents where there has been call for the banning of the hijab.  We have seen this call come from girls soccer in Quebec.  Numerous other instances have also been discussed in the press and other circles.  This criminal's actions only add to what has already been a matter of discussion in various circles.  Again, would the combination of all these instances hitting the MSM contribute to a BAN or will we simply turn and use the Habit formerly worn by Nuns as an example for letting the hijab disappear on its own, as it has done in numerous other nations where the Muslim population has adopted Western ways or never adopted the hijab in the first place?

 

[George Wallace]

A very articulate letter to the Mayor of Ottawa, from Shabnam Assadollahi, an Iranian Canadian human rights activist, on Ottawa holding an "Ottawa Hijab Day” in Feb 2016.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Open Letter to Ottawa's Mayor Jim Watson about Hijab Day in Ottawa

By Shabnam Assadollahi \

The Honorable Mayor, Jim Watson,

I hope you will take the time to listen to my concerns about “Ottawa Hijab Day” scheduled in Ottawa, Feb 25th, 2016 and that you will give serious consideration to my request outlined below.

I am someone who believes in information and education. What reasonable person could possibly object to an event which promotes “education, acceptance and tolerance”? Unless, of course, the “education” was disinformation; the “acceptance” was acceptance of a superordinate (according to Islamists) legal system (i.e. Sharia Law) that is contrary to our democratic values and human rights; the “tolerance” was tolerance of an extremist ideology that condones honour killings, FGM and treatment of women that is incompatible with Canadian values.

I would ask that you not discount me as a “racist” or an “Islamophobe”. I am a well-educated, patriotic Canadian, who is a strong proponent of diversity and freedom of religion. I am not anti-Muslim, but I do have serious concerns about extremist Islamic ideology that runs counter to the Canadian values I hold dear. I have known and liked many Muslims, who share my Canadian values, and are what could be called secular Muslims. They or their parents may have immigrated here to escape Sharia Law and to embrace Canadian values. (Unfortunately, not all Muslims who immigrate here do so for those reasons.)

One of the ways in which Islam differs from other religions is that, in addition to the individual, religious component, it also has a political component and a judicial component. As a politician, you are likely to have listened to presentations by political groups (or individuals representing those political groups), whose goal it is to present extremist Islamic ideology in a favourable light, for example, by saying that the hijab is just a sign of “modesty” and that it is worn voluntarily by Muslim women. (What Canadian could be against freedom of choice?)

Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. In fact, the hijab is a symbol of adherence to an extremist Islamic ideology and in Muslim countries women who wear it do not do so freely. I am attaching a few links for you to videos, articles, etc., which will present you with an alternate view to that which you have likely been presented by members of activist organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, such as the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Muslim Students Associations, and many more. I would ask you to watch these videos – none of them are in any way “racist”. They are thoughtful, educational pieces intended to make people think.

First of all, the idea that the hijab or the niqab are in any way “traditional” Muslim dress is absolute hogwash! They are relatively recent adoptions which are the result of Saudi Arabia having exported its extremist, Wahabbist/Salafist brand of Islam around the world. Along with the clothing come the extremist ideas!

Second, I am attaching a video of a speech by the so-called “Pope” of Sunni Islam (the most populous school of Islam and the school to which Saudi Wahabbism and Salafism belong) in which he argues for the wearing of the hijab. You will note that not once does he mention “modesty” as a reason to wear the hijab, but the reasons that he does give are not in keeping with integration into Canadian society. I am also attaching a video by Bill Warner, Ph.D., entitled “The Political Side of Hijabs“, which I hope you will find interesting and enlightening.

Third, and related to whether or not the wearing of the hijab is voluntary for all Muslim women, even in Canada, I ask you to remember the unfortunate cases of Aqsa Parvez, a Toronto teen who was strangled by her father and/or brother for not wearing the hijab. You will also remember, no doubt, the horrific case of the Montreal Shafia family “honour killings” of three daughters and a second wife by the father/husband and the brother, because they did not adhere to his extremist ideology, but, instead, adopted Canadian values. These Muslim women were Canadian citizens and their killings were not only criminal; they were motivated by beliefs that are contrary to the values of equality of women and human rights.

Request: I would like to request that you advise CAWI that, while they may continue to hold their hijab day as a privately-sponsored event, they may not call it “Ottawa Hijab Day”, as this gives the incorrect impression that it has been officially proclaimed by the City of Ottawa. In future, events which encourage non-Muslim women to try on or wear the hijab may not be held at City Hall. You may wish to give them any or all of the following reasons:

“While City Council fully endorses activities which increase understanding between cultural and religious groups, so-called “Wear the Hijab” events are a sensitive issue and do not necessarily achieve the aim of increasing inter-faith or inter-cultural understanding.

Some women feel that wearing the hijab is their choice, while others see it as a religious obligation; still others see it as cultural, not religious. Some feel strongly about the many Muslim women, including Canadian women, who have been killed for not wearing the hijab and believe that to celebrate the wearing of the hijab would be to do them a disservice. Some women believe that wearing the hijab is a private choice or a religious duty which identifies them as Muslim and find it offensive that non-Muslim women should wear the hijab, for any reason. Some view “Wear the Hijab” days as a form of proselytizing.

In closing, while people of all religious faiths are welcome to live and practice their faith in Ottawa, City Council will not proclaim individual days dedicated to the wearing of particular items of religious apparel or accoutrements of any faith, nor will it approve the use of “Ottawa” as part of the name of any such private event, or the use of City property to celebrate such private events.”

In closing, I would like to thank you for reading my letter. I hope you will think very carefully about the message that “Ottawa Hijab Day” sends to Canadians and internationally, particularly to those women who do not have a choice, who may be trying to escape a life of oppression, circumscribed by religious extremism, where their human rights are violated and possibly even their lives are at risk. Ottawa should be known as a city which promotes freedom of religion and equality of men and women.

Allowing a private group to advertise an “Ottawa Hijab Day” and to hold an associated event at City Hall may do damage to the City’s reputation by appearing to favour one religion over others (possibly even proselytizing on behalf of that religion) and by being seen to promote the wearing (even by non-Muslims) of a controversial item of clothing such as the hijab, which is associated in many countries with an extremist ideology that devalues women and curtails their human rights.

Such events are better held at a mosque, without the assistance of public money, either directly or indirectly. A better alternative would be to hold an Ottawa Women’s Day (for women of all faiths and cultures) or an Ottawa Human Rights Day or an Ottawa Equality Day, all of which are inclusive and promote the values that Canadians and Ottawans hold dear!

Sincerely,
Shabnam Assadollahi
Iranian Canadian human rights activist, Ottawa

More on LINK