• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBC's Interrupt: Jakarta

T

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
35,261
Reaction score
5,708
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I've watched CBC's Interrupt: Jakarta.....and it's surprising to see a show of this kind to come out from the CBC (of all media)! It's a must-see!

The documentary enhances the other agenda (feminism and LGBTQ).....at the expense of the other thing that's dear to Justin Trudeau's heart.



[video]http://watch.cbc.ca/interrupt-this-program/season-3/episode-2/38e815a-00d25f27378[/video]



The message by these artists are blunt. These struck me:

"This religious fundamentalism is gaining momentum, and it's mainstreaming.
It's like pollution because it's all around us and we inhale it everyday, we don't realize how bad it is for us and how it's killing us.
Before, we were afraid of the government censoring us. Now, we are afraid of fellow-citizens reporting us to the police for offending them.....for offending their religion....it's a public censorship basically. Civilians censoring civilians."


The motion for Islamophobia is basically a foot in the water. "It's just a motion!" supporters say. Really? What for? Why do we waste time and taxpayers' money on a motion, if it's not something significant?
That's how these atrocious things start.





timer- 4:30
"The most striking scene I've seen in Jakarta this time is how many women here are wearing the Muslim hijab. Ten years ago, we didn't see much. The social pressure is getting bigger and bigger."



Young Trudeau's stance on the niqab/burqa issue supports and enables this social pressure.
Anyone who support it are not women champions - they're enablers for oppression!


You can't claim to champion women and yet at the same time, close your eyes to burqas and niqabs.
You can't wash your hands and say that it's a woman's choice to wear a burqa or a niqab.


What these artists had observed and revealed, should open our eyes wider to what's happening around us now.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
You can't claim to champion women and yet at the same time, close your eyes to burqas and niqabs.
You can't wash your hands and say that it's a woman's choice to wear a burqa or a niqab.
Click to expand...

What is this supposed to mean? Do you want to use government force to prevent people from wearing their desired religious attire? Are you going to ban Jews from wearing a yarmulke or christians from wearing crosses? Their religious family members brain washed and pressured them into wearing these things, therefore they should be banned so we can maximize free choice, right? I don't think anyone should brainwash their children into religion, but having the government step in between families doesn't help them either. The best we can do is educate people about the nonsense of religion and continue the further (voluntary) secularization of our society.

You can simultaneously support feminism while also advocating that they choose not to wear such things. Families pressure other family members into toe'ing the line all the time, as long as there's no physical coercion there's nothing we can do other than respect their choices.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
What is this supposed to mean?
Click to expand...

It means exactly what it says:

You can't claim to champion women and yet at the same time, close your eyes to burqas and niqabs.

You can't wash your hands and say that it's a woman's choice to wear a burqa or a niqab.


You've got to understand the dynamics why a female fundamentalist Muslim "chooses" to wear a niqab, or a burqa.

Review the video.




Do you want to use government force to prevent people from wearing their desired religious attire? Are you going to ban Jews from wearing a yarmulke or christians from wearing crosses? Their religious family members brain washed and pressured them into wearing these things, therefore they should be banned so we can maximize free choice, right? I don't think anyone should brainwash their children into religion, but having the government step in between families doesn't help them either. The best we can do is educate people about the nonsense of religion and continue the further (voluntary) secularization of our society.
Click to expand...

You should review that documentary again. We're talking government! We're talking Justin Trudeau - and all those who think like him!

We know what we can do. You can talk about education till the cows come home......we've been talking for ages! That's all bs!
Enough talking! It's all for naught......... if the government is the one who's empowering and enabling oppressors!




You can simultaneously support feminism while also advocating that they choose not to wear such things. Families pressure other family members into toe'ing the line all the time, as long as there's no physical coercion there's nothing we can do other than respect their choices.
Click to expand...

There's your conflict there. Female Fundamentalist Muslims have been physically coersced from the moment they're born!
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
It means exactly what it says:
You can't claim to champion women and yet at the same time, close your eyes to burqas and niqabs.
You can't wash your hands and say that it's a woman's choice to wear a burqa or a niqab.
You've got to understand the dynamics why a female fundamentalist Muslim "chooses" to wear a niqab, or a burqa.
Review the video.
You should review that documentary again. We're talking government! We're talking Justin Trudeau - and all those who think like him!
We know what we can do. You can talk about education till the cows come home......we've been talking for ages! That's all bs!
Enough talking! It's all for naught......... if the government is the one who's empowering and enabling oppressors!
There's your conflict there. Female Fundamentalist Muslims have been physically coersced from the moment they're born!
Click to expand...

No, we're not interested in having the government be used as a weapon for you to hurt people of other religions you don't like. Many christians are coerced psychologically and physically to follow biblical law and I'm not going to advocate the government prevent christians from making their own choices. We have freedom of religion in the US, if you don't like it you can go somewhere there is none.

You can't respect freedom of religion if you want the government to tell people what religious clothing they can and can not wear.
 
Female genital mutilation defended in article on ‘Muslims in Calgary’ website

In the undated article entitled Female Circumcision in Islam, author Asiff Hussein claims both that FGM is “an Islamic practice” and that it “brings untold benefits to women.”

Hussein discusses the 2009 ruling by Malaysia’s National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs that FGM was mandatory for Muslim women, noting that he “could not find anything objectionable in it.”

There is reason to be concerned about increased incidents of female genital mutilation in Canada. A recent internal CBSA report reveals that border officers have been put on alert to watch for FGM practitioners entering Canada.


Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently removed the strict warning against FGM in Discover Canada — the citizenship guide given to all newcomers to Canada
Click to expand...
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/0...nded-in-article-on-muslims-in-calgary-website


Why did Justin Trudeau remove the warning against FGM for newcomers to Canada?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You can't respect freedom of religion if you want the government to tell people what religious clothing they can and can not wear.
Click to expand...

Your opinion lend support to the rationale which is why it's only practical to accept immigrants with similar or compatible values with that of the host country. Lessens the conflict and headache.
 
tosca1 said:
Your opinion lend support to the rationale which is why it's only practical to accept immigrants with similar or compatible values with that of the host country. Lessens the conflict and headache.
Click to expand...

So you top off your thread about wanting to use government force to discriminate against religions you hate by doubling down on the bigotry by implying we should only accept christian immigrants. If you hate religious freedom and American values so much you might like the middle east or africa better.

Americans reject your bigotry and people can dress themselves however they choose. Worry about your own life and let other people live theirs.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So you top off your thread about wanting to use government force to discriminate against religions you hate by doubling down on the bigotry by implying we should only accept christian immigrants. If you hate religious freedom and American values so much you might like the middle east or africa better.
Click to expand...

You're putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say we should accept only Christian migrants.
Read again.
 
tosca1 said:
You're putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say we should accept only Christian migrants.
Read again.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you said it, I said you implied it. You said unless they believe exactly what you want them to we should reject them. I say we reject you and your calls for religious discrimination. Call me a radical, but Americans should be able to dress themselves and they don't need you and your brown shirted goons to do it for them.

Freedom isn't for everyone. You're welcome to volunteer to let a government committee dress you in the mornings.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You said unless they believe exactly what you want them to we should reject them.
Click to expand...
:roll:

You're putting words in my mouth. That's not what I said. Read again.
 
What else did Justin Trudeau taken out from the new citizenship guide?

The section explaining that “barbaric cultural practices” such as honour killings are not accepted in Canada.
 
I spend a lot of time in Jakarta. Even lived there for three years. Niqabs and burqas are very rare. Rare enough that when you see them it stands out. Hijabs are much more common but most women don't even wear those.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I spend a lot of time in Jakarta. Even lived there for three years. Niqabs and burqas are very rare. Rare enough that when you see them it stands out. Hijabs are much more common but most women don't even wear those.
Click to expand...

That's not what this documentary says. They even showed women (in the background, wearing them).

Unless of course, the CBC is fabricating stories to serve as so-called "documentaries," in which case....CBC should lose its subsidy on the grounds of unethical behaviour by giving fraudulent materials, and it should be penalized like any regular media outlet.

Indonesia should file a lawsuit against the CBC, if those are just fabrication.

Anyway, I'm not a fan of the CBC. I'm all for cutting it lose, to let it swim on its own in the ocean of competition.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
That's not what this documentary says. They even showed women (in the background, wearing them).
Click to expand...

If you walk around Jakarta filming crowds all day every day you will get some footage of some women in the background wearing burqas and niqabs. But the vast majority of your footage, like over 99% of it, won't have that. But it is easy to cherry pick your footage. What you do see in every crowd are women wearing hijabs. They are a minority but they are everywhere. Even a couple of the women who worked for me at the US Embassy wore them. But that is hijabs.

I'm not criticizing the documentary. I haven't seen it. It might be worth watching. I'm just saying my own anecdotal experience of Jakarta is different than what you say it portrays with regard to the prevalence of burqas and niqabs. Also, Jakarta is a big place. Maybe we spent our time in different parts where the prevalence was different.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
If you walk around Jakarta filming crowds all day every day you will get some footage of some women in the background wearing burqas and niqabs. But the vast majority of your footage, like over 99% of it, won't have that. But it is easy to cherry pick your footage. What you do see in every crowd are women wearing hijabs. They are a minority but they are everywhere. Even a couple of the women who worked for me at the US Embassy wore them. But that is hijabs.

I'm not criticizing the documentary. I haven't seen it. It might be worth watching. I'm just saying my own anecdotal experience of Jakarta is different than what you say it portrays with regard to the prevalence of burqas and niqabs. Also, Jakarta is a big place. Maybe we spent our time in different parts where the prevalence was different.
Click to expand...

The documentary is talking about many women wearing hijabs. The artist from Montreal says that 10 years ago, there weren't too many.

There is apparently "social pressure" to adhere.
 
tosca1 said:
The documentary is talking about many women wearing hijabs. The artist from Montreal says that 10 years ago, there weren't too many.

There is apparently "social pressure" to adhere.
Click to expand...

If they are talking about hijabs then that makes more sense. And I didn't first get there until around 7 years ago so I can't personally attest to what it was like 10 years ago.

There is an interesting dichotomy going on in Jakarta. On one hand there may be a rise in displays of religious piety but on the other hand there are more bars and strip clubs opening up. The compromises they make are funny. They don't close down the bars during Ramadan but they will only serve you beer in coffee mugs during that time. :)
 
RabidAlpaca said:
What is this supposed to mean? Do you want to use government force to prevent people from wearing their desired religious attire?
Click to expand...

Do you really think that every woman who wears the niqab does so because it's her idea, and not a dictate from her owner (husband/father/brother)? Even if only one woman in ten wears the niqab because of threat of violence, it's worth the ban.

Are you going to ban Jews from wearing a yarmulke or christians from wearing crosses?
Click to expand...

You're comparing crosses with being forced to walk around wearing a tent? Time to give your head a shake.

Their religious family members brain washed and pressured them into wearing these things, therefore they should be banned so we can maximize free choice, right?
Click to expand...

There you go.

I don't think anyone should brainwash their children into religion, but having the government step in between families doesn't help them either.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. It gives the coerced an excuse for not following Daddy's orders to put a tent on if they really don't want to. As for those woman who do want to be walking tents, they can still cover themselves head to toe as long as they show their faces. It's only a small step to allowing freedom, but it's worth taking.

The best we can do is educate people about the nonsense of religion and continue the further (voluntary) secularization of our society.
Click to expand...

We? Who is "we"? Do you really think a secular society has the right to formally preach non-religion? Where did that come from?

You can simultaneously support feminism while also advocating that they choose not to wear such things. Families pressure other family members into toe'ing the line all the time, as long as there's no physical coercion there's nothing we can do other than respect their choices.
Click to expand...

You seem to be operating under the illusion that one can be at the same time a feminist and a multiculturalist. Sorry, but they are mutually exclusive. The Islamic culture is crystal clear that men are the bosses, and that women are expected to ask "how high"? when told to jump. The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation
 
stevecanuck said:
Do you really think that every woman who wears the niqab does so because it's her idea, and not a dictate from her owner (husband/father/brother)? Even if only one woman in ten wears the niqab because of threat of violence, it's worth the ban.
You're comparing crosses with being forced to walk around wearing a tent? Time to give your head a shake.
There you go.
Yes it does. It gives the coerced an excuse for not following Daddy's orders to put a tent on if they really don't want to. As for those woman who do want to be walking tents, they can still cover themselves head to toe as long as they show their faces. It's only a small step to allowing freedom, but it's worth taking.
We? Who is "we"? Do you really think a secular society has the right to formally preach non-religion? Where did that come from?
You seem to be operating under the illusion that one can be at the same time a feminist and a multiculturalist. Sorry, but they are mutually exclusive. The Islamic culture is crystal clear that men are the bosses, and that women are expected to ask "how high"? when told to jump. The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation
Click to expand...

When did I say every woman chooses to wear a niqab? People should be able to dress themselves, the government doesn't need to be doing it and women should be legally protected from being forced to wear something they don't want by anyone. It's already illegal to force women to wear something they don't want, but some will still choose it anyway because they're religiously brainwashed and family pressure is strong.

There's plenty of religious nuttery being passed along in families and I don't think they should, but the government doesn't really have any say in it outside of assuring there's no physical coercion. Can we start banning other religious practices some find abhorrent? I think circumcision is borderline child abuse, would you like to ban that? Mutilating genitalia should be illegal before ghost costumes right?
 
tosca1 said:
What else did Justin Trudeau taken out from the new citizenship guide?

The section explaining that “barbaric cultural practices” such as honour killings are not accepted in Canada.
Click to expand...

Just wondering since I can't tell if sarcasm, but is this true?
 
digsbe said:
Just wondering since I can't tell if sarcasm, but is this true?
Click to expand...

The truth is this latest guide is more a meaningless feel good gesture that serves no one except perhaps the government’s political agenda.

Meanwhile, the Liberals have taken out the section explaining that “barbaric cultural practices” such as honour killings and female genital mutilation are not accepted in Canada.
Click to expand...
Liberals' citizenship guide overhaul is all ?feel good? | Editorial | Opinion |



Taking out or leaving out what used to be written as unacceptable..... .....implies that those are now acceptable.

UPDATE: I checked out the citizenship guide - the issue about honour killings and FGM are written. Either this is the old guide, or the government decided to put them back in due to media reports.
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
When did I say every woman chooses to wear a niqab? People should be able to dress themselves, the government doesn't need to be doing it and women should be legally protected from being forced to wear something they don't want by anyone. It's already illegal to force women to wear something they don't want, but some will still choose it anyway because they're religiously brainwashed and family pressure is strong.

There's plenty of religious nuttery being passed along in families and I don't think they should, but the government doesn't really have any say in it outside of assuring there's no physical coercion. Can we start banning other religious practices some find abhorrent? I think circumcision is borderline child abuse, would you like to ban that? Mutilating genitalia should be illegal before ghost costumes right?
Click to expand...

Oh for goodness sake......it's a mask ban.
Woman or not, you can't wear a stocking mask on when you go to the bank, or any face coverings to have your license photo taken! Go ahead, try it.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:

Liberals' citizenship guide overhaul is all ?feel good? | Editorial | Opinion |



Taking out or leaving out what used to be written as unacceptable..... .....implies that those are now acceptable.

UPDATE: I checked out the citizenship guide - the issue about honour killings and FGM are written. Either this is the old guide, or the government decided to put them back in due to media reports.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me though. I personally love Canada, some of my best friends live there and I visit fairly frequently. If I had increased personal economic potential in Canada vs the US I'd have no problems immigrating there.

That said though, I think Trudeau is a weak incompetent leader. He's always wanting to save face and appear as the handsome young politically correct PM. I lost nearly all respect for him when during his speech to the UN when the overarching topic is nuclear war, enhanced tensions with NK/Iran, and global unrest he gets up there to cry about how Canada has mistreated the first nations people (I'm sure the country throws millions at them on reservations and freebies like we do in the US) and all this other typical liberal horse ****. After he got elected I read an article where he basically appointed his cabinet members based on their races and genders to "reflect Canada" without much of a focus being on merit... Their economic policy seems to be gambling on an over-inflated housing market to make up for losses in energy/manufacturing and I fear when that debt/housing market bubble pops Canada will be in for a world of hurt. I do hope my neighbors up north wise up and vote the pretty boy out with their next chance.
 
digsbe said:
It wouldn't surprise me though. I personally love Canada, some of my best friends live there and I visit fairly frequently. If I had increased personal economic potential in Canada vs the US I'd have no problems immigrating there.

That said though, I think Trudeau is a weak incompetent leader. He's always wanting to save face and appear as the handsome young politically correct PM. I lost nearly all respect for him when during his speech to the UN when the overarching topic is nuclear war, enhanced tensions with NK/Iran, and global unrest he gets up there to cry about how Canada has mistreated the first nations people (I'm sure the country throws millions at them on reservations and freebies like we do in the US) and all this other typical liberal horse ****. After he got elected I read an article where he basically appointed his cabinet members based on their races and genders to "reflect Canada" without much of a focus being on merit... Their economic policy seems to be gambling on an over-inflated housing market to make up for losses in energy/manufacturing and I fear when that debt/housing market bubble pops Canada will be in for a world of hurt. I do hope my neighbors up north wise up and vote the pretty boy out with their next chance.
Click to expand...

His priorities are juvenile!

Right now, he's insisting that marijuana will be legalized in July even though several provinces had complained that they're not ready. We are in the middle of an opioid crisis (not to mention our indigenous youth are committing suicides)....and here he is, insisting on his precious pot!

He's bad for Canada.

I'm hoping that any punch on our economy will rid us of Trudeau once we start feeling the hurt. Sometimes, we have to sacrifice to have future gain. If it's our economy - so be it.
That's the way I see it.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
It wouldn't surprise me though. I personally love Canada, some of my best friends live there and I visit fairly frequently. If I had increased personal economic potential in Canada vs the US I'd have no problems immigrating there.

That said though, I think Trudeau is a weak incompetent leader. He's always wanting to save face and appear as the handsome young politically correct PM. I lost nearly all respect for him when during his speech to the UN when the overarching topic is nuclear war, enhanced tensions with NK/Iran, and global unrest he gets up there to cry about how Canada has mistreated the first nations people (I'm sure the country throws millions at them on reservations and freebies like we do in the US) and all this other typical liberal horse ****. After he got elected I read an article where he basically appointed his cabinet members based on their races and genders to "reflect Canada" without much of a focus being on merit... Their economic policy seems to be gambling on an over-inflated housing market to make up for losses in energy/manufacturing and I fear when that debt/housing market bubble pops Canada will be in for a world of hurt. I do hope my neighbors up north wise up and vote the pretty boy out with their next chance.
Click to expand...

1. What could Canada have possibly said as a middle power at the UN that wasn't already said? Did you want a speech praising Trump on North Korea?
2. His cabinet was also based on merit many of them having experience in their fields. Also the US and past Canadian governments also appoint secretaries and ministers with no merit at all on a regular basis for pretty much their entire existence. I would argue that Trump has appointed people that are purposefully ignorant of things they are in charge of.
3. Housing is much more a provincial issue with Ontario and BC being the focus. Also energy is pretty much the only industry being affected, manufacturing is benefiting from the lower dollar, and Eastern Canada is experiencing a tech boom. Quebec has the lowest unemployment rate in decades mainly due to the tech sector and the industries that go along with it. It is not just the housing sector, the entire economy as a whole has improved greatly, if it was isolated to the housing industry like it was in the first few years you would not be seeing the unemployment decreases and wage increases that are being seen. Housing is still a problem but in the last couple of years it is no longer the main driver of growth.
 
tosca1 said:
His priorities are juvenile!

Right now, he's insisting that marijuana will be legalized in July even though several provinces had complained that they're not ready. We are in the middle of an opioid crisis (not to mention our indigenous youth are committing suicides)....and here he is, insisting on his precious pot!

He's bad for Canada.

I'm hoping that any punch on our economy will rid us of Trudeau once we start feeling the hurt. Sometimes, we have to sacrifice to have future gain. If it's our economy - so be it.
That's the way I see it.
Click to expand...

The weed stuff has already been dealt with in another thread where it should remain, but I'm curious; if the economy flourishes under Trudeau, would that improve your opinion of him, or would you merely say the economy improved in spite of him?

If it were your choice to subject Canada to a recession in exchange for getting Trudeau out of office, would you? Lastly, if he was replaced NDP government because of said downturn, I don't suppose you'd still be happy about that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom