45

‘Might it make more sense to make wearing religious insignia compulsory?’

Letters from our readers


 

Roger Lemoyne

Valuable exchange

I wish that your story on “Quebec’s war on religion” (National, Sept. 30) had adequately sought out those of us who support the idea behind Quebec’s “values charter.” I am a 30-year-old brown-skinned female immigrant who has been living in Toronto for the past five years, and I fully support PQ’s proposed values charter. If my nurse or doctor was wearing a head covering or a prominent cross, I absolutely would not be comfortable seeking medical advice on abortion, birth control or same-sex sexual relations, especially knowing the stance various religions take on these topics. There has to be a limit to religious accommodation. Segregated gym class, certain religious people being exempt from wearing helmets—if my religion demanded that I wear a necklace made of fresh meat every other week, would that also be accommodated in a government office, or would people finally admit that there is a limit to what can be accommodated, especially when one represents the government?

Dasangi Chinth, Toronto

I wonder if the PQ have got it backwards? Might it make more sense to make the wearing of religious insignia compulsory—then one could tell at a glance the religion of each person. It would stop common embarrassments such as asking a Catholic doctor for advice on birth control, or asking a Jewish dietitian for advice on how to cook pork, or telling a Muslim policeman that you are an atheist. It really would make life easier. In fact why stop there? Maybe add sexual orientation and dietary preferences? We might even leave room to denote that you are a Canadian.

John Cocker, Stouffville, Ont.

Not too long ago, a Jewish group in Montreal harassed a women’s fitness club to tint their windows because it was too tempting for men passing by on their way to their place of worship. What of the Muslim teacher who told her female students that she covers up to protect her from being hurt by the men in her family and community? What about the teenage girls who go back to their parents’ countries of birth under the pretext of a family vacation, only to find they are being forced into a marriage of convenience. These are not Canadian values. Parents in Canada fought to keep religion out of public schools, and now these same schools are being forced to provide prayer rooms. Pauline Marois is not a racist. She is protecting the basic human rights and equality that Canadian women fought so long and hard for. It is time for all provinces to take a long, hard look at the crimes being committed because of religious laws that are in direct conflict with human rights in Canada.

Claire Leblond Schmidt, Windsor, Ont.

I’m with Pauline. I never thought I’d be in agreement with a separatist, but I am on the “values charter.” Marois has been very courageous (some would say suicidal) to face the tidal wave of establishment anger coming her way. So 40 per cent of Ontarians agree with her? Pauline might be surprised to find that she has millions of new fans all across the country—like me.

Ray Givens, Ilderton, Ont.

Bailing out

Although the Canadian bail system does have flaws (“Why our bail system creates more crime than it prevents,” From the Editors, Sept. 30), it is based on the principle of balancing an accused’s rights with the protection of the public. When imposing conditions, our judges have to assess the level of risk an accused person may pose and decide if the risk can be managed in the community. Taking someone’s freedom of movement is serious, and that’s why a more reasonable option is managing risk through conditions. The suggestion that more accused persons be on bail with fewer conditions could lead to more serious crimes happening and a loss of faith in the justice system’s ability to protect Canadians, and could leave the public in danger.

Greg McCormick, Chilliwack, B.C.

Dead batteries

Durability of car batteries is only one small aspect of electric cars (“Running on fumes,” Business, Sept. 23). Car batteries and their prices are the elephant in the room that everyone, especially the environmentalists and the hybrid makers, love to ignore. Battery prices will go up as demand rises, simply because nothing else is easily available to take its place. Have prices of batteries for small computing devices dropped at the same rate as the prices of the devices themselves? Batteries for laptops are disgustingly expensive. Recycling car batteries is neither cheap nor easy. It’s also dangerous. All that cost will be built into the price of batteries, especially if makers are eventually forced to take responsibility for recycling them. Finally, the amount of resources needed for manufacturing millions of car batteries has never fully been brought into the open. You think environmentalists are upset about fracking?

Gary Dickson, Port Coquitlam, B.C.

Misogyny home and abroad

The Sept. 23 issue of Maclean’s provided an interesting contrast. There was the article on sexual violence in Egypt, claiming 99.3 per cent of women have been sexually harassed (“No country for women,” International). Then Barbara Amiel offered a shallow and flippant defence of the misogynist chant from Saint Mary’s University (“How not to handle a frosh controversy,” Opinion). New university students have been seriously harmed with the “antics” of hazing. Rape of intoxicated freshman women has occurred. The sexually explicit chant about forced sex with underage girls condones crime. Amiel seems to feel “cool” as she quotes Eminem and Miley Cyrus for their sexually obscene rap and twerks. It is appropriate that both Colin Dodds, president of Saint Mary’s, and Jared Perry, president of the student association, have spoken about the inappropriate chant. They appear to be aware of the harm that can come from chants that make light of—or condone—violence against girls and women. Sexual violence is wrong. It should not happen in Egypt. It should not happen in India. It should not happen at St. Mary’s. It is not a laughing matter.

Doreen Farley, Calgary

Behind the wheel

There are more safe teen drivers than unsafe ones, otherwise there would be hundreds of dead young people every day (“ ‘First, act like an air-traffic controller,’ ” Help, Sept. 30). The claim that, until 25 or so, young people are unsafe because of their developing brains is disproved every day. In my generation, some of us were full-fledged fighter pilots before reaching our 20th birthday (I was one of them). Others were military drivers, of tanks and other vehicles. Would Tim Hollister, author of Not So Fast: Parenting Your Teen Through the Dangers of Driving, be willing to raise the voting age or the age of enlistment in the armed forces, or does the right to vote or defend your country not require a depth of analysis and judgment at least equal to that of driving a car? It is all in the training.

Michel Sastre, St. Catharines, Ont. 7

Breakbone is back

Thank you for bringing Dengue fever into the Canadian consciousness (“ ‘Breakbone’ outbreak,” International, Sept. 23). When my husband contracted it in the Puerto Vallarta area of Mexico last winter, we had very little knowledge about this illness. At 67, he led a very active lifestyle and was in excellent general health, very rarely even catching a cold. Thus, when he died suddenly of complications brought on by the illness less than two weeks after the first flu-like symptoms appeared, we were all in total disbelief.

Maureen McLeod, Calgary

Lawyers and lack of judgment

While we may not need more lawyers (“Barrister boom and bust,” Universities, Sept. 30), we definitely need more judges. Judicial backlog is a serious issue. Creating more opportunities for cases to be heard will inevitably hasten the progress of cases through our courts. Sadly, the longer a case takes to be heard, the more fees are charged to clients. The flipside benefit is that for every judge we appoint, we will be creating work for the younger lawyers identified in your article. Judges are appointed from the senior ranks of the profession, and their caseloads could not possibly be taken up by a new lawyer working alone.

Scott Thurlow, LL.B., Ottawa

Ethical pharma

Pharmaceutical companies and medical schools are inextricably linked (“Going pharma-free,” Universities, Sept. 30). Pharmaceutical companies have an important role to play in educating health care professionals about new products, their appropriate use and the science behind their development. But it must be done within an ethical framework that ensures high-quality knowledge transfer without compromising anyone involved. Since 1988, members of Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D) have lived by a code of ethical practices that guides interactions with health care professionals, which is updated regularly to meet the highest standard of ethics, openness and transparency. This is essential to driving innovation in Canada, to bringing life-saving medicines and vaccines to Canadians and to ensuring the sustainability of the health care system.

Russell Williams, President, Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, Ottawa

Shipping out

Forgive me if I don’t get the warm and fuzzies after reading that manufacturing investment in new equipment and technologies has been steadily rising since 2010 (“A tale of two factories,” Business, Sept. 30). My personal situation is practically identical to my unfortunate friends in L’Assomption, Que., who are losing their Electrolux plant to Memphis, Tenn. Here in Simcoe, Ont., we have a huge multinational corporation calling the shots, a $108-million expansion at a plant in—guess where?—Tennessee, and our very own bitter labour dispute, brought on by demands for unprecedented concessions. I have a pretty good idea how it’s going to turn out.

Jane Blythe, Simcoe, Ont.


 

‘Might it make more sense to make wearing religious insignia compulsory?’

  1. Ahh, but Marios, and her separatist clan, are racists. The underlying objective here is to make it as uncomfortable as possible for those groups who disagree with her so they, like thousands before, will leave the province, making it more probable that she will win an election with a majority and win a referendum. That is what this is about and nothing more.

    • Some insightful words from Brad Norrad. What the media has seemingly done with the controversy surrounding the Quebec ‘Charter of Values’ is frame the arguments such that the debate pertaining to it has drifted into other areas. I have not yet read any articles or op-ed pieces that have discussed what happened in Quebec during the 80’s and 90’s. The PQ then, as it is about to do now, sought to reduce the number of Quebecois that were not of french decent by making anglophone communities feel unwelcome. Many did in fact depart from the province. This departure of non-french Quebecois coupled with the economic meltdown of the early 90’s lead to an almost win for the separatists in the 95 referendum. The arguments being forwarded by interested parties in the debate over the ‘Charter of Values’ have thus far not conceptualized the history of Quebec pertaining to the unwelcome environment created for various ethnic, linguistic and religious groups by various PQ leaders and governments. Its time the media started acting responsibly and not exposing the emotions of a politically illiterate population to generate advertising revenue. That illiteracy can only be brought to an end through insightful investigative journalism, not emotionally charged pictures that only seek to sensationalize an event in the hope of driving up Rogers’ share price.

      • Religion is not a race.

        • i put your response above…

          • lol , thanks :D

    • There is no racism in wanting to have a secular society. The majority of quebecois (democracy) supports this Charter. True the majority of English-speaking quebeckers don’t support the chart which is normal because their culture does want religion in their politics”GOD save the queen” but Quebecois culture DOES calls for religion and state to stay apart.

      • how come there was such a difference in the number of people that voted to leave Canada between the first and second referendum? Moreover, I find it quite ignorant for anyone to claim that English Canada is less secular than Quebec. The secularism in English Canada is clearly better because it has actually enabled probably the best system of racial cohesion in the entire world. The aim of secularism is to allow peoples of all religions, including those that don’t believe in one, to live in society without conflict. What else would be the point? This is why English speaking Canada is much more advanced socio-politically speaking than Quebec. Secularism is merely about separating church and state so those in power can not impose their own views on others. It seems that the Quebecois want to make atheism the official state religion while acknowledging their Catholic background at the same time. The charter of values seeks to impose that image on everyone in the province. This is not secularism, this is atheism of the states officials imposed on to all by them. The exact opposite of secularism.

        • Sure thing that’s you opinion that English Canada formula is the best there is no measurable conditions to prove it but a point of view nonetheless.
          In Quebec the Charter does not calls for people to stop believing, it rather calls for public servant “only” to remain neutral when offering a public service. Out of this public service everyone can profess the religion beliefs they want

          • No go and read the statistics, Canada, and more specifically Ontario, is the only place where the vast majority of people have a positive opinion about immigration and minorities. In other countries, their formulas have been failures that have lead to all sorts of discrimination including the sort relating to jobs and wages. Perhaps one day Quebecors can be advanced enough to have such articles written in their province.

            http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2011/11/07/supporting_immigration_is_just_so_canadian.html

          • If people are still allowed to believe than why make them take off their symbols. It’s not like removing religious clothing and symbols suddenly makes a person non-religious. They have personal religious beliefs regardless. If these personal beliefs prevent them from doing their jobs properly, then yes, there is an issue and it needs to be addressed, but removing symbols does not solve that issue and it only punishes the people who do their job well every day while also maintaining their own religious beliefs. In the case of people like doctors and nurses, if you are legitimately uncomfortable being treated by a Sikh, for example, then you have every right to ask for another doctor, But whether than Sikh is wearing a turban or not, they are still a Sikh, and it’s actually more likely you’ll be treated by someone you don’t want if everyone is forced to remove their symbols of faith.

    • This comment was deleted.

      • Yes, however, certain ethnicities are attached to certain religions. Punjabi’s to Sikhism, Semites to Jews, Quebecois to Catholicism… smarten up!

        • True but she isn’t saying just semite jews can’t wear the start of David…

          • what i was merely pointing is that a religion can be targeted because of racism towards its followers. moreover, racism does in fact include many forms of bigotry such as intolerance towards culture, race, religion and ethnicity. Its not limited to just one single aspect of skin color.

          • race is a geneological set of traits associated with people indigenous to a specific geographical location.

            I believe the word you are thinking of is prejudice, not racist. However, I do not wish to take up any further time with this semantics battle.

          • weren’t you the troll that went around this forum replying to everyone that racism does not extend to religion? and btw its not a battle but if thats what you want to consider it, you probably don’t want to continue cuz your bound to lose….like I said above, in a modern context it actually does extend to things such as culture and religion. “the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and
            professional service to people because of their colour, culture or
            ethnic origin”

            In terms of the rights of minorities to have protection of their right to keep their religion and hold jobs, the government of Quebec does not want to provide the service of protecting their right to wear what they perceive to be a religious requirement.

            Sounds like institutional racism to me.

            and heres the link to the scholarly article…

            http://web.archive.org/web/20060923102013/http://www.shef.ac.uk/socstudies/Shop/race_article.pdf

          • I wouldn’t call him a troll, but he isn’t one who is capable of thinking through any complex issues, that much he has demonstrated.

          • I am capable however some ‘issues’ are made to be complicated when they are actually quite simple… this is for example as you stated “institutional racism towards religious people”.

            Now lets demonstrate why this is so simple… hypothetically saying.. I believe in Molach an ancient god who accepts blood sacrifice… I can not sacrafice people just because I believe this God to be real… it is generally accepted that I should not because we feel that it is barbaric and that Molach is not real.

            But our generally accepted religions have no more documented ‘historical truth’ then Molach does… people worshipped him for hundreds of years. So basically religious freedom is only given to groups that have achieved cultural acceptance.

            Your uniform is open to this scrutiny and this group has deemed that it is not neccessary or culturally acceptable to wear religious symbols…

            Its not based on race… its based on concieved notions of acceptable expression in the workplace. If I can’t sacrafice people to Molach … then you can’t wear a cross at work…

            Simple… there is no religious freedom… we like to just pretend and make noise when we think the veil is getting too thin.

          • I never stated any such thing. You’re quoting someone else and attributing it to me. I understand, many people here commenting. It gets confusing.

            As for your hypothetical example, I can’t make heads or tails of it.

          • I can’t speculate on such a hypothetical however, can you provide some clarification as to what the connection between your example and the charter of values might be? Bear in mind that the charter of values, as was demonstrated in the diagram released by the PQ government, specifically targets turbans, hijabs and skull caps. If it were targeting those who believe in a sacrificial god, the PQ would have stated that.
            On a side, it almost sounds as though you support the PQ so much that you are willing to conjure up after the fact justifications that aren’t even part of the statement of facts pertaining to this decision released by the governing party.
            Why don’t you support your argument by remaining relevant to the topic at hand instead of going on tangents to sway readers and commenter away from the real issue?

          • The best I can clarify the connection between the charter of values and my hypothetical is that people in government speak of freedom rhetorically and at no point ever do we actually have freedom. There is always constraints put on what we do and believe based on the degree of acceptance that the general public has about what we dobelieve.

            The Charter of Values is just the latest example of how tyrannical government has become as a whole. They just test once in awhile what they can get away with… then they use that data to take it just a little further next time.

            I do not support the bill, I am just pointing out that there are much more important things to consider then religious uniforms. But I will admit that my stance does seem to give the impression that I am for the law. This is a misconception… I think its tyrannical.

    • Brad, you are so right. I even see the effects of the PQ’s intolerant undercurrent in their dealings with my daughter’s school: it’s an English school system school that until this fall, had offered 100% French immersion to grade 3. We were told by the education ministry that we HAVE to put 10 hours of English per week back into the curriculum. Why? Why? It makes no sense. Oh, and they also last week cancelled a popular Jewish studies after school program at a neighbourhood school – tax dollars not allowed to fund what is essentially a culture / language program. I’m a gentile, a taxpayer, and yet I find it ridiculous. PQ aren’t about keeping religion out of public life; they’re about purging a multiplicity of ideas and cultural values from Quebec, leaving it purified of foreigners, full of De Souche. To live here as an allophone is starting to feel not unlike Germany in the early-mid 1930s.

    • I feel like leaving Canada cause I don’t want to deal with all the dumb Fs forcing their religions on me. We quickly becoming a haven for people who Fed up their own countries with archaic beliefs.
      There is no god get over it and dress appropriately for the western world!

  2. The rest of Canada should mirror Quebec’s decision to try and limit how much role religion should play in our society. If we pander any religion without limits, then extremists and fundamentalists will try and push their way. Quebec has thus far successfully protected the French language and hopefully the rest of Canada will wake up and see that English and French are not the language of choice for many immigrants who choose to speak their native tongue. Similarly, there must be limits on freedoms of expressions of religions, if limits are not imposed, then all Canadians will not be equal under the law.

    • Totally agree, Im so sick of everyone telling me Canada isn’t allowed to remain Canada. I don’t want to live in India! If you move here don’t expect us to become your old country. If you didn’t want to be there why should I want you to bring it here?

  3. How incredibly childish… last time I checked no one cares what religion you are. Not to mention I don’t take anyone who is retarded enough to believe in invisible dieties on social issues or medical care.
    If you’re an idiot who believe in imaginary babysitters… then why oh why have a criminal justice system… won’t God just punish them after… save the tax dollars…
    There is a reason people don’t do that… because the logical mind realizes that after this life there is no recourse for your actions so they take care of it in the now.
    Please oh PLEASE wear a religious symbol so I know who NOT to talk to about anything important.

    • Another brain-dead atheist who thinks his atheism makes him smarter than others.

      Now, before you go accusing me of being a religious nutter, I do not believe in any god, spirits, afterlife, or anything like that. But I’ll associate with an earnest, humble religious person over an arrogant atheist who thinks his viewpoint has earned him some sort of intellectual superiority any day of the week. The very fact that you utter such mindless, incoherent drivel as the post above is far more revealing of your level of intellect than your religious beliefs, or lack thereof. It doesn’t paint a flattering picture. If you want people to take you seriously, start by cleaning up your prose and sentence structure a little bit to at least give the appearance of someone who (recently) completed junior high.

      • blah blah blah…. I don’t think it makes me smarter. I think that it makes me less ignorant. What’s the difference you ask…. Being ‘smarter’ usually means that you started from a position of lesser intellect and worked your way up to a relatively higher degree of intellect. However, people who believe in invisible all powerful dieties are child like thinkers and therefore can not be compared to intelligent adults. It’s just not fair… you can’t treat children and adults the same. They think different… and you can’t blame them for believing in magic… they just don’t know any better. Anyways I am sure they will get to keep their magic hats and symbols to protect them from their fear of death.

        And how is questioning why people believe in the Justice System, when God is supposed to do all the judging after death, a question that leads you to believe I lack knowledge?

        Does it not make sense that rapists and murderers are part of God’s plan and it’ll get around to punishing them when ‘it’ gets around to it?

        [My] hypothesis is that their lack of faith in judgement after death is manifested in their willingnessneed to seek justice here on earth… because they know deep down that it’s all malarky.

        • Those questions have been dealt with thousands of years ago. I hope you never get into philosophy as either a hobby or a career. You’re not cut out for it.

          • Right right… more blah blah blah…
            God is testing us blah blah blah… pointless rationalization of a delusional view .. blah blah blah…
            I am not “cut out” to study fairy tales from the past that dilusional people of the present believe to be true?
            You’re right… it takes a special kind of retard for that… one that molests kids and hordes wealth while preaching about chastity and modest living.

          • You put forth an argument, then state you can’t be bothered to understand the issue you’re arguing about. You see the problem with that, right? Probably not.

          • Actually I believe what I stated is that the people who claim to understand the issue are child molesters and hypocritical horders of moneygold.

            Also, I never stated that I couldn’t be bothered to understand the issue. Reading comprehension is extremely important to have…
            I stated that the way people rationalize their religions are not validations of their faith… they are validations of the level of delusion they are willing to accept.

            I am not really sure what your original qualm is with what I am saying. I suspect that you either are upset at my usual tone of speech(arrogant and crass) or you just don’t understand my point(hats and necklaces aren’t magic). My overall point or ‘belief’ if you will about this issue is that people put needless importance on objects of faith. They do so with a childish form of superstitious thinking and have through out history killed people for ‘attacking’ their ‘faith’ by attacking their ‘magic rock'(insert superstitious symbol of choice here).

            You’re free to express yourself… I think this law is stupid and fascist… but you’re also stupid if you think “God” wants you to wear a certain hat. I think he has better things to do then write a homophobic, patriarical, sadist employee handbook that even specifies your uniform… that sound less like a God and more like a political leader trying to unite people under a common set of principals… and everyone knows that if you want to unite people to a common goal… you give them a uniform… some pretty chants… and last but not least a belief system…Worked for the Nazis… Works for Walmart… and they all learned it from the Church and perfected it due to Edward Burnese.

            P.S. suck on it… mmm yeah… like that…oh god.. opps sorry I just blew my information all in your hair.

  4. By all means toss religion out of govt….but ALL religions, not just the current boogeyman.

    • totally agree, government is supposed to be free of religion but then we pander to it. Well guess what then I believe in the Lord of The Rings! and I should be allowed to dress like a bloody wizard if i want!

      • Heh…..good point! Apparently a lot of people listed themselves as Jedi on the last census….and we have people getting ID photos taken wearing a colander on their heads as they say they are Pastafarian.

        So why not a wizard’s robe indeed?

      • We pander to it because people who don’t believe often do not want to hurt feelings.

        • F their feelings!

  5. I don’t care what fairy tale you believe in, or if you want to wear some random piece of jewelery or clothing. However I do have a problem with when it interferes with your job, if it keeps you from wearing a uniform, or conceals your identity.

    If you take a job that requires a uniform be prepared to wear the uniform and not ask for exceptions, there are reasons for uniforms and you should not be standing out in any way I don’t need or want to know your personal views. Also if anyone covers their face regardless of religion it should be arrestable, you are concealing your identity and I believe this is illegal.

    • But there has to be an actual demonstrable REASON for forcing people to not wear their religious items.

      Then again, you’re an anonymous poster on the internet demanding to know people’s identity, so I bet your awesome at holding all kinds of odd ideas to justify yourself.

      • well for one I dont trust Drs who believe in religions that refuse science…yeah how off the wall am I for that!
        Secondly I dont want to discuss my reproductive choices with someone who is going to be religiously bigoted towards safe sex, abortion or even contraception.
        I also don’t want to be being faced with sexist beliefs forced in my face by archaic beliefs about ones hair.
        Its all BS!

  6. 1. “I am a 30-year-old brown-skinned female immigrant who has been living in Toronto for the past five years…” And that qualifies you to speak authoritatively on our natural born individual right to freedom of conscience and religion how exactly??? “If my nurse or doctor was wearing a head covering or a prominent cross, I absolutely would not be comfortable seeking medical advice on abortion, birth control or same-sex sexual relations” Then go see another doctor for a second opinion or stop being so prejudiced. “There has to be a limit to religious accommodation.” No there doesn’t; I don’t care what our joke of a constitution says, freedom of conscience and religion is a natural born individual right and there’s a fine line between liberty and aggression; so long as one individual does not initiate force or fraud against an innocent, government has no business limiting our rights.

    2. “Not too long ago, a Jewish group in Montreal harassed a women’s fitness club to tint their windows because it was too tempting for men passing by on their way to their place of worship.” That fitness center should tell them to get f*cked. “What of the Muslim teacher who told her female students that she covers up to protect her from being hurt by the men in her family and community? What about the teenage girls who go back to their parents’ countries of birth under the pretext of a family vacation, only to find they are being forced into a marriage of convenience. These are not Canadian values.” I agree in part, but imposing arbitrary prior constraint on individual freedoms isn’t a Canadian value either. “Parents in Canada fought to keep religion out of public schools, and now these same schools are being forced to provide prayer rooms.” Neither religion nor secularism should be imposed in schools, individual choice should be emphasized, so long as it isn’t too disruptive to the academic environment. “She is protecting the basic human rights and equality that Canadian women fought so long and hard for.” Freedom of religion and conscience is a basic human right, like it or not. Marois is eroding human rights, not emboldening them.

    • Well, there does have to be a limit to religious accommodation, but most of the ones under realistic discussion are nowhere near that limit. The argument “Some things must be forbidden, such as X, and therefore there must be no Y” doesn’t get one far in such a situation.

    • Solid fisking job on that letter. Nicely destroyed every point she made. I can’t believe what idiotic, hand-wringing fools some people are. Can’t go to a doctor if he/she is wearing a head-covering or cross? That’s just the sort of whining, maudlin complaint that secularist zealots (yes, there is such a thing) have become known for.

  7. If you insist on wearing, what you classify as a religious piece of clothing, please provide proof that it is religious and not cultural. As a freeborn Canadian woman, i reject the covering of a woman’s head as being for religious purposes, and suggest it is for the purposes of dominance by the male figures in your life.

    • Some people feel that way about wedding rings. The fact is, too effing bad if you don’t like it. They don’t have to prove anything to you.

Sign in to comment.