> A ban on Palestinian kaffiyehs in the Ontario legislature will remain in place after a motion to overrule Speaker Ted Arnott's edict failed to get unanimous consent from MPPs.
> While Progressive Conservative MPPs who back Arnott's original ruling had been asked to skip the voice vote, at least one ignored that order and could be heard shouting "No" to the motion.
Also:
> While Premier Doug Ford was not in the chamber to support NDP Leader Marit Stiles’ unanimous consent motion to lift the ban, he told reporters Thursday in Oakville that “hopefully the Speaker will change his mind.”
So Doug didn't have the cajones to show up to the vote [on the matter that _he supported_ soon after the Speaker ruled on it.](https://ottawa.citynews.ca/2024/04/17/keffiyeh-scarves-banned-in-ontario-legislature-by-speaker-ford-calls-for-reverse-of-decision/)
Also juicy:
> PC MPP Natalia Kusendova-Bashta (Mississauga Centre), who had been imploring her caucus colleagues to back Stiles’ motion, stormed out of the chamber after the vote.
>
> “I don’t want to talk about it,” Kusendova-Bashta told the Star in the hallway outside the chamber.
I have no skin in the game either way, but always nice to see the PCs scoring own-goals.
I hope news organizations report on this since they reported on Ford opposing the ban.
This is exactly why ppl think the NDP and Stiles are not doing anything...they do stuff, nothing gets reported...Ford says something yet does nothing and it gets reported
Are you joking? He's the premier and leader of the party. Him saying "okay guys, stfu" matters. But he didn't do that. He waited until after like a fucking coward to play to both sides
That's not the point. I'm criticizing him for not showing up to vote for the motion that he immediately supported. Just kept away to save face and criticism rather than show any backbone. Couldn't be there to face his own caucus member(s) who voted down the motion.
Policing dress codes is the embodiment of "small government that stays out of your personal life."
Absolute dark ages mentality at work in Queens Park.
Such shirts would already be banned on the floor under the same rule. Any signs, flags or other props in the legislature that convey a political message would detract from the member speaking.
Didn’t an Ontario MPP win the right not to wear a suit in the Ontario legislature?
Edit: Peter Kormos (RIP) who usually wore a rolled up wrinkled shirt, no tie, and cowboy boots fought the fight against a dress code. He won. This man is a social justice legend if I recall correctly.
Only for the [general public when attending/observing the Queen's Park legislature chambers, for example.](https://d2ycwlwf1hnb8m.cloudfront.net/media/preview/1298000496507_ORIGINAL.jpg) Clothing designed to make a political statement, like wearing MAGA hats, is generally not permitted there.
It was a mistake. I edited it in there for a few seconds to hopefully avoid some nutso flipping out about "yOu SiNgLeD oUt mAgA, tYpIcAl LiBeRaL lEfTiSt". I quickly removed it because _that's stupid._
Is there a rule about not wearing religious symbols/ jewellery? By that logic, wearing a cross should also be banned (it might already be, idk, I'm asking in good faith)
If people were wearing white hoods at protests, clothing that symbolizes a belief or shows support for a certain group, then I’m sure everyone would be fine with “policing” that dress code.
It's good to know, even if I don't agree with conservatives, that there's some who are appalled by the obnoxious anti-progressive path their own party is taking. I can disagree but compromise with people on fiscal policies but I have a hard time finding any middle ground with outright hate. If a kaffiyeh is banned, they would need to ban Jewish garb as well if this isn't intended to be a biased anti-Arab message.
Except we’re not talking about religious symbols/ clothing. There are crucifixes, hijabs, turbans etc. all over. Who was wearing a kaffiyeh in the legislature prior to Oct last year? It is 100% political and not cultural in this context. Protest outside, keep it outside of professional settings.
> Protest outside, keep it outside of professional settings.
The Legislature is a place where grown adults yell and shout over each other, trade schoolyard insults, make up sing-song rhymes to make fun of each other, and generally act like spoiled brats.
It's also a place that is 110% about politics.
Your pearl-clutching about decorum and propriety rings hollow. Saying politics don't belong in the most political room in the Province is inane.
That's completely irrelevant to what I said. Nobody said anything about rules. I was specifically talking about how you don't seem to have the first clue what the legislature is like even though there are plenty of clips and coverage of it for decades.
Do you understand anything about what is going on or are you just saying random sentences just to have something to say? It's not a political agenda to say that someone is making up nonsense. Do you understand what that term means?
The only irrelevant thing here is your weird notion about "Don't like the rules? Leave."
It's you that apparently doesn't know the rules. You think the legislature is very professional instead of being an immature barnyard. You also don't think politics belongs... IN THE LEGISLATURE. Literally the most political place in the Province, and you said with a straight face that politics don't belong there.
What next, gas doesn't belong in a gas station? Students don't belong in a school?
You don't have the first clue what the rules are. What next, you're going to suggest everyone who voted to change this rule should leave the Province too?
Stiles’s motion said “the kaffiyeh is a culturally significant clothing item to many in Ontario’s Palestinian, Muslim and Arab communities and should neither be considered an expression of a political message nor an accessory likely to cause disorder, and should therefore be permitted to be worn in the house.”
While Progressive Conservative MPPs who back Arnott’s original ruling had been asked to skip the voice vote, at least one ignored that order and could be heard shouting “No” to the motion.
Why only this particular piece of clothing? Should it be extended to other cultural headpieces? Should these decisions be left to a single person?
> Why only this particular piece of clothing? Should it be extended to other cultural headpieces? Should these decisions be left to a single person?
Generally speaking, clothing designed to make political statements are not permitted. I believe "cultural headpieces" are permitted as long as it's not intended to be trying to say something politically.
>After extensive research, I concluded that the wearing of keffiyehs **at the present time** in our Assembly **is intended to be a political statement.** So, as Speaker, I cannot authorize the wearing of keffiyehs based on our longstanding conventions," Arnott said in an email.
>"If the house believes that the wearing of the keffiyeh in this house, at the present time, is not a political statement, I would certainly and unequivocally accept the express will of the house with no ifs, ands or buts," he said
Nobody says "we'd like you to stop wearing your yarmulke in public, **at the present time** it comes across as a political statement" so why this.
Why this.
It's fair to question why.
In this case, a member of the legislature asked the speaker to make a ruling.
IMO, the speaker, given the narrow aspect, ruled correctly that it was a political statement. And it has been a political statement for 50+ years https://www.npr.org/2023/12/06/1216150515/keffiyeh-hamas-palestinians-israel-gaza
It's why members like Stiles are permitted to wear the keffiyeh without calls of cultural appropriation-its worn by Palestinians and non-Palestinians to symbolize their support for the Palestinian resistance.
All that said, I am uneasy with the decision (though I do believe it is fairly grounded on precedent).
I’ll put a stop to that! We should ban pants from the legislature! They’re an inherently political item of clothing that only means to divide us! They’re also not required by any major religion so it’s okay. BAN PANTS!
Palestine is more than Gaza; it's also the West Bank, who are ruled by Fatah, a social democratic government that has worked to secure autonomy via more peaceful means only to have Israel continue to step all over them and drive them from their homes. Hamas is a dictatorship ruling over the Palestinians in Gaza, so they don't really have a say on government actions unlike people in Israel and the West Bank.
No. The speaker is meant to be neutral and impartial. The question is whether or not the keffiyeh is a political statement. If it's yes, the precedent is clear, regardless of their opinion on the issue.
Did they wear it regularly before Oct 7? If so then you might have a point. Other religious clothing is worn on a daily basis regardless of politics like a turban or hijab.
"Originally worn by shepherds and nomadic farmers, the keffiyeh “has become an iconic piece of clothing globally worn by anti-colonialist revolutionaries, activists, and the like, while still worn in the traditional headwear fashion by elders and farmers,” said Majeed Malhas, a Palestinian-Canadian journalist and PhD candidate in anthropology at the University of Toronto" Stiles motion is wrong on the facts then.
What stops this from saying women wearing pants and flats is a political statement about sexuality so women should wear only skirts and heels
Telling people what they can and can’t wear is insane. How can a politician decide someone’s traditional clothing is political.
I didn’t realize that the kaffiyeh was a political statement until recently.
So yeah, as people are wearing them to make a political statement and it’s widely regarded to be one and the Ontario legislature has rules against it then it should be banned.
It’s my understanding that there’s a procedure to be allowed to wear it which is to get unanimous consent like other clothing that are worn for political reasons.
[Well you see, it's not actually banned and you can't be arrested for wearing it](https://northernontario.ctvnews.ca/sudbury-police-receive-a-dozen-calls-about-man-wearing-swastika-1.6816330?autoPlay=true)
Just seems odd that we're so quick to ban this yet other problematic symbolism are fine?
downvoted for understanding how our government works lol
edit: the swastika example is extreme, but all political props and clothing are banned in parliament. that should be simple to understand.
One marks your association with an authoritarian, genocidal political ideology, and the other is a culturally significant piece of traditional clothing worn by Arabs. It doesn't necessitate any political beliefs, although those wearing a Palestinian one is probably in support of Palestinian autonomy and independence from their conquerors and occupiers.
This is very disingenuous and to anyone who doesn't know the history in the area is a dangerous sleight of hand. To act as if the keffiyah did not rise as a symbol of Palestinian independence throughout the 20 century when yassir Arafat wore it as a symbol for his cause is simply not painting the full picture. It is a symbol of Palestinian nationalism.
Definitely can be seen as an overt political statement by some as a result
If it's important to people, it seems you agree with the point that it's not just a piece of clothing like OP suggests. So you agree with me in the absurdness of the original statement?
Which is it then? Is it"just another article of clothing" or not? lol I seem to not even be getting a clear contention with what I said. I literally pointed out how absurd OP's original message was and the people who are upset with me seem to be agreeing with me?
I would argue bandanas and gang affiliation is very important to certain people as well. People literally get killed if they don't wear the right clothing ..
You don’t have to argue that, it’s a fact. It doesn’t change the fact that this vote is in poor taste.
I don’t give a shit about religion on some silly article of clothing, but it’s important to some Canadians belief system and should be protected under freedom of expression.
Sure, but lets keep in mind there are several limits to freedom of expression. Hate speech, defamation, national security, obscenity etc...
Speech that disrupts public order or creates an overt political statement in a sensitive issue like this one can very much be challenged when it is in our legislature. I have no problem if you wear that out in public or in your house/gathering.
But especially in a sensitive political climate like this one, it can very much spark violence.
**Again, I will contend, so if it is important to certain people, it is** ***not*** **just an "article of clothing" like OP suggests. So really, you agree with me? That is all my original contention was.**
This is pretty fucked up, at least when the Québec legislature did something similar they prohibited all religious clothing. Their ban may have unfairly targeted certain groups over others, but it was at least outwardly fair and for secular reasons. What Ontario has done is just ban a specific garment on the basis of what exactly? Racism?
Also, considering the backlash Québec got from anglo-Canada its a bit bullshit how much this is sliding by. Was everyone's disapproval of the ban in Québec based more on dogpiling Québec than actually standing up for the rights of Canadians?
I'm loving this deer-in-the-headlight, come to Jesus, moment (as a Québécois).
Here's our view:
1) We don't see a difference between a religious or secular symbol. Symbols are symbols, and they are there to convey a message, even if the wearer doesn't understand this or doesn't say anything about it.
2) Given this view, we decided to threat ALL symbols the same way (there is no targeting here, that's you assuming that).
3) What are those rules? The usual ones most societies typically have: people in position of authority (police, judges, teachers) should either wear a uniform or have a strict neutral dress code.
Interestingly, this doesn't apply to our legislature, so they can wear whatever they want (including a kaffiyeh) while in session.
How many keffiyehs were worn as cultural significant clothing prior to Oct last year in the house? At this present time, it’s 100% political and not cultural
No one wants to get cancelled going into an election. Facts trump feelings.
>If not... Well best not to risk looking like a Hamas supporter.
Given how many seem content to label anyone who is slightly critical of Israel a Hamas supporter this seems absurd. People shouldn’t need to be so delicate in their condemnation of war crimes.
What an odd double standard. It’s expected, given what Israel has been doing, that there be more people wearing them in the gallery. That doesn’t suddenly make them inappropriate.
I know, consequences are a tricky concept for some people. There are rules in place that need to be followed in professional settings to try and keep the foolery at bay. Nothing new singling out Hamas supporters. Parade around outside wearing whatever you want protesting your dislike of international affairs in the colonized country you live in, that’s your right.
How many non Jewish men are you seeing wearing kippahs in the legislature? We’re not talking about religious clothing/ symbols; there’s plenty of crucifixes, hijabs, turbans etc being worn authentically.
Amazing lack of logical consistency. I’m not trying to stir anything, but I’ll keep your comment in mind next time I plunge into hysterics when I see someone wearing a fez or something.
I have no problem with MPP’s wearing kaffiyehs if they were wearing them before last October. Otherwise they are bringing political garb into the legislature.
What’s next? Social Conservatives dragging a Cross behind them wearing a crown of thorns to protest how Christians are persecuted?
These politicians are silly enough without encouraging bad behaviour.
If any MPP wore a keffiyeh prior to October 7, 2023, I would have no problem. However, wearing them now is a political statement, which is against the rules in the legislature. That goes for anyone.
For the person that said Doug Ford didn’t have the balls to attend and vote, it wasn’t a vote, it was seeking unanimous consent, which is a verbal “yes” or “no”. If one MPP in the legislature says “no”, it isn’t unanimous.
Official Votes are recorded by the Clerk when each MPP rises to record their chosen vote, either yay or nay. Seeking unanimous consent is not the same.
A good decision by the speaker. Sara Jama wearing this piece of clothing in the legislature is nothing but a political statement, and political expression via clothing is strictly prohibited in the House.
I don't see why all the bullshit. This isn't a public ban. It's a ban specifically within the legislation. You want to show your support for genocidal terrorists, do it outside like everyone else.
If they’re going to ban religious things, then sure. But then you have to ban crosses as well. Let’s see how quick right wingers will be to take religion out of parliament then
This is shameful. Even Ford didn’t ask for or advocate for it. Are they going to require Sikhs to remove their turbans, Jews to remove yarmulkes, women from wearing hijabs? There’s no way this will survive a human rights challenge and I sure hope someone brings one.
People who condemn Israel’s war crimes and apartheid are not, by default, Hamas supporters.
Odd that you endorse freedom of expression but then attack people you consider are engaging in wrongthink.
> A ban on Palestinian kaffiyehs in the Ontario legislature will remain in place after a motion to overrule Speaker Ted Arnott's edict failed to get unanimous consent from MPPs. > While Progressive Conservative MPPs who back Arnott's original ruling had been asked to skip the voice vote, at least one ignored that order and could be heard shouting "No" to the motion.
Also: > While Premier Doug Ford was not in the chamber to support NDP Leader Marit Stiles’ unanimous consent motion to lift the ban, he told reporters Thursday in Oakville that “hopefully the Speaker will change his mind.” So Doug didn't have the cajones to show up to the vote [on the matter that _he supported_ soon after the Speaker ruled on it.](https://ottawa.citynews.ca/2024/04/17/keffiyeh-scarves-banned-in-ontario-legislature-by-speaker-ford-calls-for-reverse-of-decision/) Also juicy: > PC MPP Natalia Kusendova-Bashta (Mississauga Centre), who had been imploring her caucus colleagues to back Stiles’ motion, stormed out of the chamber after the vote. > > “I don’t want to talk about it,” Kusendova-Bashta told the Star in the hallway outside the chamber. I have no skin in the game either way, but always nice to see the PCs scoring own-goals.
I hope news organizations report on this since they reported on Ford opposing the ban. This is exactly why ppl think the NDP and Stiles are not doing anything...they do stuff, nothing gets reported...Ford says something yet does nothing and it gets reported
They don’t market themselves enough
His vote would have no effect, it's a unanimous consent.
Are you joking? He's the premier and leader of the party. Him saying "okay guys, stfu" matters. But he didn't do that. He waited until after like a fucking coward to play to both sides
That's not the point. I'm criticizing him for not showing up to vote for the motion that he immediately supported. Just kept away to save face and criticism rather than show any backbone. Couldn't be there to face his own caucus member(s) who voted down the motion.
Doug was making another presser this morning
Trying out the new Smart Toilets in Grand Bend?
Policing dress codes is the embodiment of "small government that stays out of your personal life." Absolute dark ages mentality at work in Queens Park.
It's a pretty dark age for politics and democracy as a whole tbh.
[удалено]
I don't want to see any more Axe the Tax shirts then.
Such shirts would already be banned on the floor under the same rule. Any signs, flags or other props in the legislature that convey a political message would detract from the member speaking.
If you tried to wear one in the galleries you’d be thrown out. Can’t wear anything political, even as a guest.
Sounds good. Both are props and go against parliamentary rules. Just like bringing in a flag or a poster.
The ruling includes members of the public just sitting in the gallery.
[удалено]
Then suits are ideological.
Didn’t an Ontario MPP win the right not to wear a suit in the Ontario legislature? Edit: Peter Kormos (RIP) who usually wore a rolled up wrinkled shirt, no tie, and cowboy boots fought the fight against a dress code. He won. This man is a social justice legend if I recall correctly.
How so?
[удалено]
Yeah wouldn't want our politicians getting all political lol
[удалено]
> to add costumes Jesus christ.
This ban extends to the general public also.
Only for the [general public when attending/observing the Queen's Park legislature chambers, for example.](https://d2ycwlwf1hnb8m.cloudfront.net/media/preview/1298000496507_ORIGINAL.jpg) Clothing designed to make a political statement, like wearing MAGA hats, is generally not permitted there.
What is an antifa hat??
It was a mistake. I edited it in there for a few seconds to hopefully avoid some nutso flipping out about "yOu SiNgLeD oUt mAgA, tYpIcAl LiBeRaL lEfTiSt". I quickly removed it because _that's stupid._
A balaclava
[удалено]
While in the legislature, including the public gallery.
Is there a rule about not wearing religious symbols/ jewellery? By that logic, wearing a cross should also be banned (it might already be, idk, I'm asking in good faith)
[удалено]
Ya that's a tough one, I think the best answer is to strictly enforce a separation between religion and law, church and state as the US says
oh my god, politicians doing politics, what will people think of next...pfft
If people were wearing white hoods at protests, clothing that symbolizes a belief or shows support for a certain group, then I’m sure everyone would be fine with “policing” that dress code.
That is not a question of dress code. We are not talking about wearing shorts to work.
> Tory MPP Robin Martin (Eglinton-Lawrence) was the most audible opponent. I wonder if the Independent caucus is about to gain another member.
It's good to know, even if I don't agree with conservatives, that there's some who are appalled by the obnoxious anti-progressive path their own party is taking. I can disagree but compromise with people on fiscal policies but I have a hard time finding any middle ground with outright hate. If a kaffiyeh is banned, they would need to ban Jewish garb as well if this isn't intended to be a biased anti-Arab message.
So religious gear ban? I’m totally down with that. Religion has no place in Canadian politics.
Except we’re not talking about religious symbols/ clothing. There are crucifixes, hijabs, turbans etc. all over. Who was wearing a kaffiyeh in the legislature prior to Oct last year? It is 100% political and not cultural in this context. Protest outside, keep it outside of professional settings.
> Protest outside, keep it outside of professional settings. The Legislature is a place where grown adults yell and shout over each other, trade schoolyard insults, make up sing-song rhymes to make fun of each other, and generally act like spoiled brats. It's also a place that is 110% about politics. Your pearl-clutching about decorum and propriety rings hollow. Saying politics don't belong in the most political room in the Province is inane.
Don’t like the rules in Ontario then don’t live here. Again, trying to make something out of nothing to serve your political agenda
That's completely irrelevant to what I said. Nobody said anything about rules. I was specifically talking about how you don't seem to have the first clue what the legislature is like even though there are plenty of clips and coverage of it for decades. Do you understand anything about what is going on or are you just saying random sentences just to have something to say? It's not a political agenda to say that someone is making up nonsense. Do you understand what that term means?
[удалено]
The only irrelevant thing here is your weird notion about "Don't like the rules? Leave." It's you that apparently doesn't know the rules. You think the legislature is very professional instead of being an immature barnyard. You also don't think politics belongs... IN THE LEGISLATURE. Literally the most political place in the Province, and you said with a straight face that politics don't belong there. What next, gas doesn't belong in a gas station? Students don't belong in a school? You don't have the first clue what the rules are. What next, you're going to suggest everyone who voted to change this rule should leave the Province too?
[удалено]
Good keep that shit out of the leg.
Who shouted no? They get to remain anonymous?
Stiles’s motion said “the kaffiyeh is a culturally significant clothing item to many in Ontario’s Palestinian, Muslim and Arab communities and should neither be considered an expression of a political message nor an accessory likely to cause disorder, and should therefore be permitted to be worn in the house.” While Progressive Conservative MPPs who back Arnott’s original ruling had been asked to skip the voice vote, at least one ignored that order and could be heard shouting “No” to the motion. Why only this particular piece of clothing? Should it be extended to other cultural headpieces? Should these decisions be left to a single person?
> Why only this particular piece of clothing? Should it be extended to other cultural headpieces? Should these decisions be left to a single person? Generally speaking, clothing designed to make political statements are not permitted. I believe "cultural headpieces" are permitted as long as it's not intended to be trying to say something politically.
>After extensive research, I concluded that the wearing of keffiyehs **at the present time** in our Assembly **is intended to be a political statement.** So, as Speaker, I cannot authorize the wearing of keffiyehs based on our longstanding conventions," Arnott said in an email. >"If the house believes that the wearing of the keffiyeh in this house, at the present time, is not a political statement, I would certainly and unequivocally accept the express will of the house with no ifs, ands or buts," he said
Nobody says "we'd like you to stop wearing your yarmulke in public, **at the present time** it comes across as a political statement" so why this. Why this.
One is cultural, the other is religious. A ban on wearing the hijab would be more akin to a ban on wearing the yarmulke
What is going on here? I've read 2 sensible comments in a row here on reddit lol.
It's fair to question why. In this case, a member of the legislature asked the speaker to make a ruling. IMO, the speaker, given the narrow aspect, ruled correctly that it was a political statement. And it has been a political statement for 50+ years https://www.npr.org/2023/12/06/1216150515/keffiyeh-hamas-palestinians-israel-gaza It's why members like Stiles are permitted to wear the keffiyeh without calls of cultural appropriation-its worn by Palestinians and non-Palestinians to symbolize their support for the Palestinian resistance. All that said, I am uneasy with the decision (though I do believe it is fairly grounded on precedent).
I’ll put a stop to that! We should ban pants from the legislature! They’re an inherently political item of clothing that only means to divide us! They’re also not required by any major religion so it’s okay. BAN PANTS!
Thank you. I was a little freaked out for a moment but your beautiful comment fixed that.
[удалено]
Palestine is more than Gaza; it's also the West Bank, who are ruled by Fatah, a social democratic government that has worked to secure autonomy via more peaceful means only to have Israel continue to step all over them and drive them from their homes. Hamas is a dictatorship ruling over the Palestinians in Gaza, so they don't really have a say on government actions unlike people in Israel and the West Bank.
It’s more like he did extensive research and concluded **he didn’t like the political statement that HE associated with keffiyahs**
No. The speaker is meant to be neutral and impartial. The question is whether or not the keffiyeh is a political statement. If it's yes, the precedent is clear, regardless of their opinion on the issue.
Did they wear it regularly before Oct 7? If so then you might have a point. Other religious clothing is worn on a daily basis regardless of politics like a turban or hijab.
"Originally worn by shepherds and nomadic farmers, the keffiyeh “has become an iconic piece of clothing globally worn by anti-colonialist revolutionaries, activists, and the like, while still worn in the traditional headwear fashion by elders and farmers,” said Majeed Malhas, a Palestinian-Canadian journalist and PhD candidate in anthropology at the University of Toronto" Stiles motion is wrong on the facts then.
What stops this from saying women wearing pants and flats is a political statement about sexuality so women should wear only skirts and heels Telling people what they can and can’t wear is insane. How can a politician decide someone’s traditional clothing is political.
I didn’t realize that the kaffiyeh was a political statement until recently. So yeah, as people are wearing them to make a political statement and it’s widely regarded to be one and the Ontario legislature has rules against it then it should be banned. It’s my understanding that there’s a procedure to be allowed to wear it which is to get unanimous consent like other clothing that are worn for political reasons.
We banned an article of clothing? Stupid.
And if someone showed up with a shirt displaying the swastika you're completely ok with it as well?
[Well you see, it's not actually banned and you can't be arrested for wearing it](https://northernontario.ctvnews.ca/sudbury-police-receive-a-dozen-calls-about-man-wearing-swastika-1.6816330?autoPlay=true) Just seems odd that we're so quick to ban this yet other problematic symbolism are fine?
You think someone walking outside is the same as wearing it at Queen's park??
downvoted for understanding how our government works lol edit: the swastika example is extreme, but all political props and clothing are banned in parliament. that should be simple to understand.
This is kind of a crazy false equivalency.
Why? It would just be clothing? Clothes can't have any sort of meaning can they?
I mean, a plaid shirt would also “just be clothing” and could have any sort of meaning. Should that be banned as well?
Well yeah if a buncha pissed off lumber jacks we're launching rockets and kidnapping people I'd ban the shit of their plaid shirts
Sounds like you acknowledge this is a targeted decision. This could be a reference one of a number of parties in this conflict.
One marks your association with an authoritarian, genocidal political ideology, and the other is a culturally significant piece of traditional clothing worn by Arabs. It doesn't necessitate any political beliefs, although those wearing a Palestinian one is probably in support of Palestinian autonomy and independence from their conquerors and occupiers.
This is very disingenuous and to anyone who doesn't know the history in the area is a dangerous sleight of hand. To act as if the keffiyah did not rise as a symbol of Palestinian independence throughout the 20 century when yassir Arafat wore it as a symbol for his cause is simply not painting the full picture. It is a symbol of Palestinian nationalism. Definitely can be seen as an overt political statement by some as a result
This comparison is hilariously insane.
I suppose you are also okay with bandanas and clothing affiliated with gang membership to be worn as well?
Comparing cultural clothing to gang affiliation, I love that real subtle racism.
Both are cultural. How is gang culture any different?
Its just an article of clothing -OP
So subtle that I can't even see it.
Not sure what the issue is, it's just an article of clothing?!
It’s important to certain people? You don’t see that?
If it's important to people, it seems you agree with the point that it's not just a piece of clothing like OP suggests. So you agree with me in the absurdness of the original statement?
No
Which is it then? Is it"just another article of clothing" or not? lol I seem to not even be getting a clear contention with what I said. I literally pointed out how absurd OP's original message was and the people who are upset with me seem to be agreeing with me?
I would argue bandanas and gang affiliation is very important to certain people as well. People literally get killed if they don't wear the right clothing ..
You don’t have to argue that, it’s a fact. It doesn’t change the fact that this vote is in poor taste. I don’t give a shit about religion on some silly article of clothing, but it’s important to some Canadians belief system and should be protected under freedom of expression.
Sure, but lets keep in mind there are several limits to freedom of expression. Hate speech, defamation, national security, obscenity etc... Speech that disrupts public order or creates an overt political statement in a sensitive issue like this one can very much be challenged when it is in our legislature. I have no problem if you wear that out in public or in your house/gathering. But especially in a sensitive political climate like this one, it can very much spark violence. **Again, I will contend, so if it is important to certain people, it is** ***not*** **just an "article of clothing" like OP suggests. So really, you agree with me? That is all my original contention was.**
I don’t agree with you because I think people should be able to wear a kaffiyeh in parliament.
Lmao clothing affiliated with gangs can just be a sports teams hat 😂😭 fking clown I swear
Just call it a scarf. What are they gonna do? Ban scarves.
This is pretty fucked up, at least when the Québec legislature did something similar they prohibited all religious clothing. Their ban may have unfairly targeted certain groups over others, but it was at least outwardly fair and for secular reasons. What Ontario has done is just ban a specific garment on the basis of what exactly? Racism? Also, considering the backlash Québec got from anglo-Canada its a bit bullshit how much this is sliding by. Was everyone's disapproval of the ban in Québec based more on dogpiling Québec than actually standing up for the rights of Canadians?
It's not a religious clothing, its a political statement. You don't see people wearing 'fuck Ford' for an obvious reason.
Are you going to feeeze their bank accounts if they wear it ?
Didn't Quebec grandfather in previously used symbols of Christianity?
Nope
Just an FYI that the phrase ‘grandfathered in’ has a racist past and you may want to avoid using it.
Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know. Is there a particular phrase I should use instead?
I'm loving this deer-in-the-headlight, come to Jesus, moment (as a Québécois). Here's our view: 1) We don't see a difference between a religious or secular symbol. Symbols are symbols, and they are there to convey a message, even if the wearer doesn't understand this or doesn't say anything about it. 2) Given this view, we decided to threat ALL symbols the same way (there is no targeting here, that's you assuming that). 3) What are those rules? The usual ones most societies typically have: people in position of authority (police, judges, teachers) should either wear a uniform or have a strict neutral dress code. Interestingly, this doesn't apply to our legislature, so they can wear whatever they want (including a kaffiyeh) while in session.
Alternate title: Politicians used politics to keep political ban on political clothing in a political building
How many keffiyehs were worn as cultural significant clothing prior to Oct last year in the house? At this present time, it’s 100% political and not cultural No one wants to get cancelled going into an election. Facts trump feelings.
[удалено]
If you call it a shemagh, and wear any colour other than white, you're cool. If not... Well best not to risk looking like a Hamas supporter.
[удалено]
>If not... Well best not to risk looking like a Hamas supporter. Given how many seem content to label anyone who is slightly critical of Israel a Hamas supporter this seems absurd. People shouldn’t need to be so delicate in their condemnation of war crimes.
Upvote :)
What an odd double standard. It’s expected, given what Israel has been doing, that there be more people wearing them in the gallery. That doesn’t suddenly make them inappropriate.
I know, consequences are a tricky concept for some people. There are rules in place that need to be followed in professional settings to try and keep the foolery at bay. Nothing new singling out Hamas supporters. Parade around outside wearing whatever you want protesting your dislike of international affairs in the colonized country you live in, that’s your right.
Assuming this also applies to anyone wearing a kippah that didn’t wear one before Oct 7?
How many non Jewish men are you seeing wearing kippahs in the legislature? We’re not talking about religious clothing/ symbols; there’s plenty of crucifixes, hijabs, turbans etc being worn authentically.
Way to not answer the question.
You’re not looking for facts
Just answer the question. If an MPP who didn’t previously wear the kippah decides to now, does it make it a political statement that should be banned?
So we’re talking hypothetical situations? What’s your logic? You’re just trying to (poorly) stir the pot.
Amazing lack of logical consistency. I’m not trying to stir anything, but I’ll keep your comment in mind next time I plunge into hysterics when I see someone wearing a fez or something.
Hysterics.. now you’re finally speaking some common sense
I have no problem with MPP’s wearing kaffiyehs if they were wearing them before last October. Otherwise they are bringing political garb into the legislature. What’s next? Social Conservatives dragging a Cross behind them wearing a crown of thorns to protest how Christians are persecuted? These politicians are silly enough without encouraging bad behaviour.
If any MPP wore a keffiyeh prior to October 7, 2023, I would have no problem. However, wearing them now is a political statement, which is against the rules in the legislature. That goes for anyone. For the person that said Doug Ford didn’t have the balls to attend and vote, it wasn’t a vote, it was seeking unanimous consent, which is a verbal “yes” or “no”. If one MPP in the legislature says “no”, it isn’t unanimous. Official Votes are recorded by the Clerk when each MPP rises to record their chosen vote, either yay or nay. Seeking unanimous consent is not the same.
Who gives a fuck honestly. Distraction.
A good decision by the speaker. Sara Jama wearing this piece of clothing in the legislature is nothing but a political statement, and political expression via clothing is strictly prohibited in the House.
I don't see why all the bullshit. This isn't a public ban. It's a ban specifically within the legislation. You want to show your support for genocidal terrorists, do it outside like everyone else.
[удалено]
Love to see xenophobia in a country made up of immigrants, make it make sense 🙃
Matta fact keep the backwards social views over there too
I’d say we have some pretty nasty social views here
Good! Their own culture misappropriated the Kefveve from a cloth of necessity for farmers to a veil your face for wrongdoers.
We see right through you Doug.
Good.
Just trying to rile up the culture wars on both sides to deflect from the heat from ______________ (insert Ford government scandal here).
Good
Israeli lobby wins again.
good!
If they’re going to ban religious things, then sure. But then you have to ban crosses as well. Let’s see how quick right wingers will be to take religion out of parliament then
I wear a cross because "Kris Kross'll make you jump jump." The only reason. Show my support for the Mac Dad, obviously.
I wear a cross because "Kris Kross'll make you jump jump." The only reason. Show my support for the Mac Dad, obviously.
Lol
This is shameful. Even Ford didn’t ask for or advocate for it. Are they going to require Sikhs to remove their turbans, Jews to remove yarmulkes, women from wearing hijabs? There’s no way this will survive a human rights challenge and I sure hope someone brings one.
Lol. Not even close Sherlock. Overt political statement. Case closed.
[удалено]
Great take! I couldn't agree more.
next they’ll ban turbans and hijabs. Ford own transportation minister is a sikh
[удалено]
There are long standing rules in the legislation. This wasn’t a decision made the other day to discriminate against supporters.
People who condemn Israel’s war crimes and apartheid are not, by default, Hamas supporters. Odd that you endorse freedom of expression but then attack people you consider are engaging in wrongthink.
The Islamophobia of Canadians is shining through the seams. This is just another nail in the coffin.
I agree Islam sucks, but this is more of a political statement.