What they really mean when they say "Reasonable Accomodation" (Click for Link)

Yet another example of the ridiculous environment that Multiculturalism has created.  We have become so timid and inept when it comes to defending our own cultural values that it takes a Provincial Minister to make a common-sense judgment, and the "victim" still gets to waste our tax dollars on a human rights complaint.
Forget that everyone involved on the anti-Niqab side makes sense.  Having learned to speak a second language, and taken some courses in a third, I can assure you that it is not a BS point when an instructor says it is difficult to correct pronunciation when you can't see the student's mouth.  Not to mention it's pretty damn tough to run a discussion when one student demands to be separated from the group because it includes men.  How about the extra cost and effort for ensuring this woman gets a female instructor, or privacy from the men?

Honestly, I'm beginning to think the only way to stop this @#$!ing garbage would be to deliberately place a male instructor in her class, and then have him file a gender discrimination complaint against her because she won't accept a male teacher.

I remember very clearly when Hérouxville made their little charter for immigrants, outlining that antiquated and sectarian cultural practices would not be tolerated.  The media decried it as "unnecessary" and "Islamophobic". Now who looks foolish?  How many tax dollars are we going to waste on this woman who is demonstrating a clear unwillingness to become Canadian?  And if she didn't know that people in Canada don't generally keep their faces covered indoors, and are required to interact with the opposite gender, then we have been doing a damn poor job of exporting our values. She wants Reasonable Accommodation.  Problem is, "Reasonable Accommodation" is Multi-culti doublespeak for "I come from a perpetually aggrieved minority group.  As a guilt-ridden white liberal, you must bow to my every demand lest I call you racist."

I'm not fond of Islam.  But then, I'm not fond of most religions, as I prefer philosophy to theology.  I suspect the whole veiling issue is more about regional (read: Arab) practices than religion.  Funny thing is, some very good friends of mine are female Muslims.  None of them cover their faces, probably because they don't come from Arab families.  Are they worse Muslims than a woman in a Niqab, an Abbaya, or a Burka? No idea.  But I do know they are better Canadians. 

The problem with the way that we address human rights in Canada is that we tend to focus on identity groups. We label people, and then distribute largesse based on what group is the cause célèbre this week. Before too long it becomes a bizarre morass of point-scores (women trump men.  But visible minorities trump whites. So does being a Muslim man beat being a white woman?  What happens if the white woman is lesbian? Wait, how do we place a white lesbian woman who makes more than 60k a year? Is she "diverse", or a filthy bourgeois pig?) If instead we focused on individual rights (free expression, right to assembly, property rights), we would discover that groups are protected by default.  If every individual has the right to expression, and assembly, then a group of individuals expressing collective faith are by definition protected!  Even better, these rights are easy to manage because it becomes clear that your rights exist only insofar as they do not infringe on the rights of another individual. Put in a clear delineation between public and private spheres and we're cooking with fire.

Reexamine this case- this woman insists that wearing the Niqab is part of her religious expression, and thus a right.  But she is receiving instruction at a public institution, where participation is contingent on adhering to common behavioural rules.  It's a contract- get language courses from the government, play by our rules.  Furthermore, her discriminatory behaviour against men violates the charter right of male teachers not to suffer discrimination based on gender.  The other students are also being discriminated against- if she gets one-on-one time with an instructor, this is giving her an advantage.  It's "positive" (as in doing something extra rather than denying something) discrimination, and still wrong.

There's nothing reasonable about accommodating someone who has no intention of adopting Canadian values.