French Canada vs. Sharia


Visit Newsreal

Multiculturalism is threatening to ruin Canada by purporting that all cultures are equal.  How this definition reconciles those cultures that practice and affirm Sharia Law with that of our democratic system of human rights is beyond reason.

The niqab is a sticky point in Canada.  It is the ultimate symbol of female oppression.  It also denies the rest of society the right to see what could be hidden under that garb, translating into potential safety and security issues.  As for the importance of body language, it is the primary way we communicate and a critical factor in law enforcement and in our courts.

Last year in Ontario:

A judge has ordered a Toronto woman to testify without her niqab at a sexual assault trial – raising the thorny issue of whether Muslim women should be allowed to appear as witnesses wearing a veil that covers everything but the eyes.

A relative of the woman said it’s distressing the judge has exceeded his “jurisdiction and ventured into the interpretation of religious laws concerning the veil, not to mention the fact that … (she) has observed the veil for many years in accordance with her” beliefs.

Full Story here.

Though a sensitive issue and any fair thinking person can sympathize with the pain of this victim, her relative needs to wake up and realize that she is not in a country governed by Sharia.  Witnesses are routinely scrutinized and body language is revealing.

So now, sparks are flying in Quebec over the niqab.  Traditionally Liberal Quebec has ironically introduced Bill 94 which requires people to show their faces in order to receive government services, for reasons of identification, security and communication.

There is nothing unreasonable about this.  In fact 95 percent of Quebecers support the bill according to an Angus Reid poll, while 80% of Canada as a whole supports it, yet there are those radically opposed to the bill, branding it as discriminatory and even racist.  In fact, a day of Action was even planned by the Non/No Bill 94 Coalition Press, comprised largely of far left feminists.

Day of Action on May 18 that will demonstrate national opposition to Bill 94, the sweeping legislation proposed in Quebec that would deny government services to people who wear face coverings such as the niqab (or face veil) worn by some Muslim women, and to demand that this legislation be immediately withdrawn.   The Non/No Bill 94 Coalition Press Release

For a list of supporters for the subjugation of women through the niqab click here.

These feminists have a twisted understanding of what human rights means. They are supporting the subjugation of women under the multicultural pretext, disregarding the relentless warnings from moderate Muslims who accurately understand what enslavement means.  While these feminists continue to fiercely oppose Western women who embrace their femininity–and even scoff at the choice to stay home and raise children–they fight for the “rights” of Muslim women to be stripped of their personhood.  Moderate Muslims rail against the niqab:

There is no requirement in Islam for Muslim women to cover their face. Rather, the practice reflects a mode of male control over women. Its association with Islam originates in Saudi Arabia, which seeks to export the practice of veiling — along with other elements of its extremist Wahhabist brand of Islam.

If readers have any doubt about this issue, they should take a look at the holiest place for Muslims — the grand mosque in Mecca. For over 1,400 years, Muslim men and women have prayed in what we believe is the House of God. And for all these centuries, female visitors have been explicitly prohibited from covering their faces.  (Tarek Fatah, National Post)

How about if  the husbands or boyfriends of these radical feminists shoved them under a black burka, even in scorching summer heat?  Another missed factor by these misguided feminist cads:  physical abuse can be easily hidden under masses of black cloth.

This insanity is driven and propelled by special interests bent on stirring up trouble.  Salam Elmenyawi, head of the Muslim Council of Montreal  called Bill 94 “very troubling and serious” since the government has allegedly tailored legislation that “points a finger” at the Muslim community.

He predicted that if the bill becomes law, it will be challenged as an infringement of the freedom of religion guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  (National Post)

Canada continues to be torn apart under a multicultural banner, cheered on by Leftist ideologues and agenda driven fundamentalists. The forces of Islamism are insidious and determined. Bill 94 represents a critical positive step that hopefully other Canadian provinces will follow.

Christine Williams is the producer and host of the Canadian National Talk show On the Line on CTS TV, which has been recipient of 6 International Awards. To read Jamie Glazov’s interview with her at Frontpage, click here. She can be reached at ChristineBWilliams23@gmail.com.

  • Democracy First

    Canada`s cross country, conservative, intellectual daily, The National Post, has a great columnist, the Quebec based Barbara Kay, who wrote the following re this subject matter.

    =========================

    Whether they admit it or not, virtually all Westerners hate the niqab and burqa for the anti-democratic ideology and misogynistic gender relations they signify. Many are increasingly willing to say so.

    Why does political correctness fall away when it comes to the niqab? Because other Islamist inroads, like Sharia banking, happen offstage, so to speak. They are not “seen” by the public. But the niqab is open to the collective public gaze. Individuals responding to their own discomfort observe that discomfort mirrored in other people’s faces, which in turn emboldens them to protest. Politicians know grassroots support when they see it and several Western leaders have seized the moment for legislating partial or full niqab bans.

    Parallel to the parliamentary efforts now advancing in France and Belgium, Quebec recently tabled a new law, Bill 94, which will ban the niqab — or any face cover — when extending and receiving public services in such institutions as courts, hospitals, schools, and licensing bureaus.

    It is no accident that Quebec is leading the way in North America on this file. Quebec, apart from multicultural Montreal and its diffuse northern native populations, is the last bastion of ethnic homogeneity on the continent (with a not-unrelated tendency amongst ethnic québécois to politically incorrect candor), a province where obsession with cultural preservation drives the political agenda.

    Since the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s, cultural preservation has become synonymous with the linguistic hegemony of French. But Catholicism, however vestigial in terms of practice and influence, still rallies the loyalty of québécois in the face of perceived challenges to their cultural security.

    Because the controlling hand of the Catholic Church fell particularly heavily on women in the past, Quebec is also the most militantly feminist of Canadian provinces. Female politicians exert a powerful influence over all social and cultural policies and disbursements here. The galling sight of veiled, depersonalized women in this women’s rights stronghold arouses far more animus than any multiculturalist ideal can counter.

    The decisive move, approved by 95% of Quebecers (a rare moment of political accord uniting federalists and nationalists) and 75% of all Canadians, followed a cultural tipping point, arrived at in November 2009, when a niqab-clad Egyptian woman, Naema Ahmed, was expelled from a government-run French class. This was done for pedagogical reasons, not religious ones; hostile to suggested compromises in advancing phonological competencies for which the teacher’s direct observation of her mouth is crucial, she exhausted the administration’s patience. Notable in her case, however, is the fact that the school felt so hamstrung by political correctness and dithered so long, the government stepped in to order the expulsion.

    Ahmed’s indifference to the sensibilities of her classmates and her general belligerence were helpful in reinforcing the public’s impression that she was making a political rather than a religious statement. That she later tried to re-enroll, still veiled, in another French course — unsuccessfully — and promptly filed a complaint with a human rights commission gives the whole caper the earmarks of an Islamist shot across the bow.

    Ahmed’s rebarbative attitude happily precluded the kind of public sympathy elicited by another Montreal case in which a veiled Indian Muslim woman, “Aisha,” was removed from a French course. Aisha tried to cooperate and was heartbroken, not angry, when expelled. Her story served to make a reasonable law seem draconian to sentimentalism-driven commentators.

  • Democracy First

    Barbara Kay, #2

    Ahmed’s rebarbative attitude happily precluded the kind of public sympathy elicited by another Montreal case in which a veiled Indian Muslim woman, “Aisha,” was removed from a French course. Aisha tried to cooperate and was heartbroken, not angry, when expelled. Her story served to make a reasonable law seem draconian to sentimentalism-driven commentators.

    Quebec has been poised for some time to draw a line in the unstable sands of “reasonable accommodation.” Justifying the Ahmed expulsion, Quebec immigration minister Yolande James was forthright in making it plain that “if you want to integrate into Quebec society, here are our values. We want to see your face.”

    The road to Bill 94 can be said to begin in Hérouxville, Quebec, a tiny rural hamlet of 1,300 souls, with nary a niqab in sight, or likely to be. In January 2007, following a number of controversial cases involving the reasonable accommodation of religious sensibilities in Montreal, one of its outspoken councilors, André Drouin, published a “code of conduct” for immigrants including bans on the stoning of women and female circumcision, while privileging in public institutions the Christian symbols that are familiar to the 95% of Quebecers who identify themselves as Catholics. The retired engineer was pilloried as a racist at the time, but today he feels vindicated by Bill 94. The manifesto served to reveal the fault lines between elite theorists and the population, as well as to kindle passionate debate on the limits of reasonable accommodation.

    Embarrassed by the worldwide attention the manifesto received, with its attendant images of Quebec as a redneck backwater, Premier Jean Charest instituted the costly ($7 million) yearlong Bouchard-Taylor commission in February 2007, its mandate to investigate and make recommendations on the treatment of religious minorities in Quebec. The expressed goal was to avoid French-style minority ghettoization and encourage integration.

    The commission, headed by earnestly paternalistic academic multiculturalists who were totally out of sync with the mood of the population and visibly affronted during public hearings by outspoken expressions of resentment against religious minorities — chiefly Hasidim and Muslims — arrived at their foreordained conclusion that Quebec culture was not threatened by minorities and that their pet concept, “interculturalism,” which maximizes tolerance for individual choices, deserved further study. The public was not buying any of it.

    Is Quebec racist? Polls indicate Quebecers admit to racist attitudes disproportionately to other Canadians, but there is no hate crime evidence to suggest heritage québécois are more racist in practice than other provinces. Is Quebec xenophobic? Yes, somewhat, although it is a mild version that asserts itself in grumbling, not in organized vituperation, vandalism, or violence.

    Quebec is a distinct society, culturally isolated in North America and understandably defensive around realistic threats of cultural dilution. Elevated xenophobia relative to other provinces has not, however, made inroads on Quebec’s record as a peaceful, democratic, and behaviorally tolerant society.

    Xenophobia is reflexively condemned as a cultural sin amongst our intellectual bien-pensants. But what if another cultural group really is out to dominate your own group? In that case, benign xenophobia — the kind that aligned with feminism to produce Quebec’s Bill 94 — is what one might call an atout, a trump card in the grim cultural war games to which all democratic societies have been co-opted, where victories that do no harm to democracy, like the niqab ban, are few and should be regarded as precious.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lary9 Lary9

      Thoroughly said.

  • Ken Huffaker

    Time for a wake up call on religious freedom and political correctness. It's fine to practice your religion as long as it does not interfere with security, and human rights to life, in any particular land. When your religion tries to force it's beliefs onto another culture INSIDE that cultures borders, then it's time to call a halt to it. If you truly want to practice your beliefs, stay in your homeland and practice it.
    We now know that the only reason the Muslims leave their own countries, and move to non-Muslim countries, is to overthrow the new host country!
    Assimilation to a society is the backbone of civilized societies. Every country that has lost it's direction and cultural stability has been the ones trying to accomodate foreign cultures in their midst. Keep your alien culture inside your own home but the remainder of the time, look and act like the country you tryed so hard to become a citizen of.
    Bottom line; Adapt or go back where you came from.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/GaryRumain Gary Rumain

    It may be a part of arselifter culture but its not a part of Western culture. If they come to the West, they must adapt to the West and not demand the West adapt to them.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/The_Inquisitor The_Inquisitor

    All Muzzies should be required to wear Porky Pig arm patches.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lary9 Lary9

      Islamo-fascism is a serious, subtle issue requiring a thoughtful response. This why only mature persons should comment or the FPM forum will again degenerate into an irrelevant screed dedicated to name calling and taunting.

  • http://thereisnosantaclaus.blogspot.com TINSC

    What could be more anti-feminist than forcing a woman to give up her personal identity?

  • http://victoriaontheright.blogspot.com/ Barry from Victoria

    It was Trudeau's Liberal Party and the Quebec connection that sent us down this road in the first place, and in many ways the Obama phenomenon reminds me of Trudeaumania. When his regime took power I was a Canadian nationalist, but by the time Chretien, his weasely successor, came along I was a Western separatist. Canada isn't really a country so much as a marriage of convenience that nobody has much enthusiasm for, and this is the Trudeau legacy. While so many Canadian young men were dying overseas fighting fascism Trudeau was riding around Quebec on a motorcycle wearing a Nazi helmet. In the late sixties he appeared out of nowhere on all the major Canadian news outlets, the subject of a coordinated and concentrated media buildup. This was during a period of militant Quebec nationalism, and we were told Trudeau was the man to defeat it. I'm ashamed to say I fell for it hook, line and sinker. As it turned out his way of undermining Canada was far more insidious and damaging than a few bombs thrown by marxists. Since then I have often wondered who or what was behind that media buildup.

    • Democracy First

      I'm a Calgarian who grew up in Quebec. Like so many others i was enthralled by Trudeau, perhaps because of the hype. And yet I was never altogether at ease with multiculturalism, feeling we in Canada had something really great, which explained why so many were immigrating here.

      But Trudeau perhaps did save confederation, by providing an important place in federal government for Quebecois, who were previously relatively insignifiant in Ottawa.

      In every other regard, Trudeau was a disaster.

      Chretien, to his credit, tackled the deficit. Otherwise he was little else than a crass politician, seeking and holding power for its own sake. His derogatory comments about Albertans should mark him forever – although they won't.

      If the "ROC" hadn't voted the Liberals out after years of scandal and sleaze, I would have turned western separatist myself.

      • http://www.whycanadamustend.com Tony Kondaks

        Chretien was great with the deficit, as Democracy First writes, but as Justice minister under Trudeau, he was a disaster, being almost single-handedly responsible for putting a race law in Canada's constitution that is responsible for segregating children in Quebec:
        http://whycanadamustend.com/Chapter%205.htm

  • Dan Larrivee

    When we see these Islamic dress code culture, I only think how dangerous it is to be able to have someone go public, totally disguised, not even knowing if its a man or woman, I always think about those suicide murderers, women are now trained to commit those crimes, its totaly unnaceptable, if the law ever goes into their favor, I will myself will wear one also, just to be unrecognized as a infidel, its simply outrageous, and shows their lack of integrationsand interest in our western society.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lary9 Lary9

      They have not one iota of interest in Western Society unless it is to uncover the cracks in its foundation. There is taquiya to cover their tracks and the Wahhabist agenda and its bullet points on which to focus. They care nothing about Wayne Gretzky nor the history of any member nation of Dar al Harb. Sadly, I distrust what radical Islamists say—but only when their lips are moving.

    • Kanwi

      To Dan, I think you have triggered a great Idea just like 'Draw Mohammand Day'. Let us nominate a 'Wear a Burka' Day that will show up the ridiculous nature of this dress form in western societies. On that day try and meet with a friend or your wife or someone from just knowing approximately where they will be. Even just across the street would be a joke. Well… they do say there is security in a crowd!!!

  • Marty

    Good for Quebec. It's about time. Perhaps the Canadians can help to wake up Americans about the dangers and undemocratic tendencies of political correctness and the parallel society muslims are attemtping to create through violence and intimidation.

  • Mike

    No surprise. These kinds of so called progressive groups and individuals have supported oppressive Communist systems in the past. They have always been apologists for states that
    crushed their masses ,as long as those states weren't of the Capitalist variety.They have
    always exhibited a double standard.
    A friend of mine who was Marxist –no longer is—–in his student days, was against the capital
    punishment in the West,but not in Communist countries. This is how illogical these people can be.

  • http://diannvail.com Diann

    Well, it appears from the above comments that we Canadians think alike on this issue. Now, when will we see a federal party step up to the plate and make the changes to immigration and policy that will reflect our wishes? Ken is absolutely correct in that Muslims immigrate to western countries because of their goal to dominate and impose Sharia law. Others come here because there are problems in their countries of origin. Those problems are almost always related to Islam and the imposition of Sharia law and it's misogynist rules about women. So if they came here for the second reason – it's essential that they NOT bring those damaging practices to Canada and the West. When will immigration get this into their policy, and shut down the radical stampede into Canada?

    • Kanwi

      There needs to be government funded ngo's and other organisations that openly sponsor refuge for Islamic women and their children who want to break free and escape the bondage of Islam. One reason why moderates are afraid is the network of believers who would invoke an "apostate" label and punishment, you know, this 'honor killing' garbage they defend along with other non western practices such as female mutilations. They cannot escape if they don't know where to go for refuge in the first place.

  • Disabled Veteran

    We need action such as this in the US. Time to take a stand and save our country from the terror that is islam. It may take some time, a certain event, or a threat not supposed, but real, eventually the US will consider such a ban as Quebec. When the public becomes educated, by the threat of sharia, already existing in our country, there will be action taken. Better hope sonner than later, in this case.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/georgerekers georgerekers

    only ugly chicks should be forced to wear the niqab. muslim men are not very smart. is there a pattern here.???

  • Stephen Gele

    Anti-sharia bills HB 785 “American and Louisiana Laws for Louisiana Courts” and HB 701 “Free Speech Protection Act” have both passed the House of Representatives. See video: http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Video/WM/2010/May_20… (time stamp 1:57-2:05) & Daily Journal http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Journals/H_Journals_… (pages 20-21). See http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocum… & http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocum…?
    did=687795 . Video of testimony before the House Civil Law Committee & Senate Judiciary A Committee: http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Video/WM/2010/April_… and http://senate.legis.state.la.us/video/2010/April/… (time stamp 3:06 – 3:30); http://senate.legis.state.la.us/Video... (time stamp 4:20 – 14:30).
    Anti-sharia bill SB460 also passed Lousiana Senate 33 to 3. See http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocum… Daily Journal http://senate.legis.state.la.us/SessionInfo/2010/… and video http://senate.legis.state.la.us/video/2010/May/05
    (time stamp 2:12 – 2:23).

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/khadijah1212 khadijah1212

      Laws can be repealed.

  • DMC

    Canada needs to dump Quebec…The Canadian economy would flourish.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/khadijah1212 khadijah1212

    I am an American-born convert to Islam. I wear niqab, Subhan'Allah!

    From article – QUOTE: "It is the ultimate symbol of female oppression."

    Maybe to non-Muslims.

    I am not married. No man or other family (all Christians) forces me to wear niqab. I am certainly not oppressed and I really wish non-Muslims (and some Muslims) would stop speaking for all niqabi-sisters! They do NOT speak for me!

    No one individual or group speaks for all Muslims. Islam has no single central human authority, comparable to the pope and Vatican for the Roman Catholic Church, or to various General Assemblies and the Lambeth Conferences for the Anglican Communion.

    QUOTE:" As for the importance of body language, it is the primary way we communicate and a critical factor in law enforcement and in our courts."

    "Body language is not a part of phone or email conversations, yet people seem to not have a problem being understood. So why would they be in person?

    QUOTE: "Though a sensitive issue and any fair thinking person can sympathize with the pain of this victim, her relative needs to wake up and realize that she is not in a country governed by Sharia."

    Wow! Canada must really stink as far as Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech go! Here in the US Muslims are allowed to practice and express their religious beliefs even though there is no Sharia law. VIVA AMERICA!

    QUOTE: "Bill 94 which requires people to show their faces in order to receive government services, for reasons of identification, security and communication."

    Not a problem. Even in Saudi Arabia where niqab is law, women must uncover their face for passports!

    QUOTE: "Coalition Press Release For a list of supporters for the subjugation of women through the niqab click here."

    Subjugation according to who? The writer of this article?

    QUOTE: 'There is no requirement in Islam for Muslim women to cover their face…."

    WOW! Another great reason to be an American! In the US all that Constitutionally matters when it comes to practicing any aspect of one's religion is one's own personal belief – not the belief of a minister, priest, rabbi, imam, or scholar of the religion.

    QUOTE: "Its association with Islam originates in Saudi Arabia, which seeks to export the practice of veiling "

    Oops! "Someone" needs to study Islamic history! The practice of veiling the face began about 1,300 years before Saudi Arabia become a county – The Saudi state was founded in 1932.

    QUOTE: "Canada continues to be torn apart under a multicultural banner."

    I think the main problems Canadians have is Xenophobia, and fear of things they don't understand.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/khadijah1212 khadijah1212

    How come an article who's title said it was about sharia law turned out to really be about weather niqab is is a requirement of the religion?