in literal terms, this is of absolutely no importance to me. i don't think ordering them to remove the scarf is particularly oppressive. but, i can't think of any good reason why they should be so insistent on it, either. i mean, they don't force you take off your baseball cap, do they?

where do the fashion police fall in the division of powers?

what's more concerning to me is why it's of such apparent interest to the government. what's driving this? it can't be some kind of weird tory nationalism, it's too out to lunch - none of these people are insane quite like that. some of them may be a little unstable, sure, but not in the king and country sense. so, what is it about? surveillance? race baiting to rev up their base? just base authoritarianism?

i don't have a good answer. but, i'd recommend we all be extra special careful to hide our uncool nieces from the self-imposed fashion critics in the pmo.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqab-ruling-appeal-1.3230288

PaleBlueDot
Agreed. A government that can dictate what you *can't* wear is a government that can dictate what you *can* wear.

Jessica Murray
i really think it's entirely a surveillance issue. they want the opportunity to get some good shots in, so they can file them away in a face-recognition database.

CeeDeeEnn
Im curious, if you escaped your "old" country, for a number of big reasons (emigrating is a major undertaking) why would you insist on bringing your "old" attitudes, opinions, etc with you and then insist on imposing them on the new country? Not a fresh start really.

It's not in the Koran, as the koran says both women AND men must dress modestly, yet "men" Imams, have managed to either force and/or brainwash women into thinking only they must hide their personality and faces

Jessica Murray
i just don't think this is a debate. i don't care what people's fashion decisions are. i'm not about to spend the slightest amount of time thinking about it, or trying to figure out why some people prefer scarfs and some other people like green socks or whatever other triviality.

and, as mentioned, i don't think that's really the issue. i think the government is looking for an opportunity to use it's facial-recognition software. they may be appealing to some base racist rhetoric to get the argument to the court, because they can hardly make the argument they'd like to, but what it's actually about is surveillance.