(December 10, 2013 at 10:49 pm)MarxRaptor Wrote: It means that religion must be kept to yourself. So no displaying it!

That's not secularism, that's authoritarianism: you would go goddamn insane if the religious right put in place a ban on atheist and anti-theist clothing and displays, that outrage simply must go both ways.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike the niqab, but yours isn't one of them.

(December 11, 2013 at 7:14 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(December 10, 2013 at 10:49 pm)MarxRaptor Wrote: It means that religion must be kept to yourself. So no displaying it!

That's not secularism, that's authoritarianism: you would go goddamn insane if the religious right put in place a ban on atheist and anti-theist clothing and displays, that outrage simply must go both ways.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike the niqab, but yours isn't one of them.

It isn't authoritarian, they are already doing this in Quebec.

Thus far, within the realms of decency, the government has not attempted to tell me what I may and may not wear.

I'd quite like to keep it that way. I'm already constrained in what I can say, what jokes I can tell, what science experiments I can show my kids, what weapons I can make, and where I can shoot them, what drugs I can take etc etc. I don't need any more!

---

Besides, what if they then come for your sunglasses?

(December 11, 2013 at 8:18 am)MarxRaptor Wrote: It isn't authoritarian, they are already doing this in Quebec.

...and France. It's still authoritarian though. It's just as wrong to ban the niqab as it is to ban hoodies.

(December 11, 2013 at 8:18 am)MarxRaptor Wrote: It isn't authoritarian, they are already doing this in Quebec.

That's only a compelling argument if part of your definition of authoritarian is "impossible in the real world."

Or in Quebec, I suppose. But then it would only not be authoritarian definitionally.

(December 11, 2013 at 9:42 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(December 11, 2013 at 8:18 am)MarxRaptor Wrote: It isn't authoritarian, they are already doing this in Quebec.

That's only a compelling argument if part of your definition of authoritarian is "impossible in the real world."

Or in Quebec, I suppose. But then it would only not be authoritarian definitionally.

Quebec isn't authoritarian though. They are actually very liberal, so how is it authoritarian if it is being done by the most liberal province in Canada?

---

(December 11, 2013 at 9:25 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(December 11, 2013 at 8:18 am)MarxRaptor Wrote: It isn't authoritarian, they are already doing this in Quebec.

...and France. It's still authoritarian though. It's just as wrong to ban the niqab as it is to ban hoodies.

Except hoodies aren't a sign of theocratic fascism & the oppression of women.

So are their any other "signs" you'd like banned?

(December 11, 2013 at 10:13 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: So are their any other "signs" you'd like banned?

Public display of the swastika & Stalin's portrait. If you want to display those things in your own home, fine, but keep that out of the public square as well.

I want to ban anything to do with the pilgrims. They were the Genesis of one of the worst genocides the world has ever seen in the massacre and displacement of native Americans. So could you stop celebrating Thanksgiving please?

(December 11, 2013 at 10:28 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I want to ban anything to do with the pilgrims. They were the Genesis of one of the worst genocides the world has ever seen in the massacre and displacement of native Americans. So could you stop celebrating Thanksgiving please?

That's American Thanksgiving, mate. Here in Canada it has nothing do with pilgrims.