Canada’s Ringing ‘No’ to the Niqab

Pages: 1 2

The Harper government was more than correct in banning the veil for Muslim women when taking the citizenship oath to their new country. It sends the message that new citizens are expected to integrate and become a part of their new land’s social life, and that there are values they will have to accept and requirements, including future ones concerning the veil, they will have to meet. In other words, they are to live in Canadian society and not just remain in a self-segregated state of arrival like has happened all over Western Europe.

In making Muslim women take the citizenship oath without the veil, the Harper government is also enforcing the important Western value of equality on the first day they become citizens. Besides the symbolism, the ban showed special treatment will not be granted to anyone and that in Canada there is a separation between religion and state as well.

The Canadian government’s ban can only represent a defeat for those Islamists who regard the wearing of the face-veil in the West as an outward display of sharia law as well as a barrier meant to separate Muslims from their Western societies. In the West, in the Islamists view, the veil’s wearing was always meant to make Islam visible in public spaces and relay the unspoken message: We are different. Besides being the Islamists’ version of showing the flag, the veil and headscarf have also served as Islamist probes to test a host society’s resolve to defend its values.

As a result of the veil’s and headscarf’s importance to Islamist plans, it is not surprising that in Germany a parliamentary delegate of Turkish origin, Ekin Deligoz, received death threats when she told Muslim women living there to take their headscarves off. Deligoz was a member of the leftist Green Party at the time. Ninety percent of the threats she received were from men and were so serious that Deligoz had to have police protection.

But the Canadian ban’s greatest significance is that it represents a setback for Islamic supremacism. There is currently a religiously motivated, political offensive being waged in Western countries, principally in the courts and under the guise of religious freedom, through which Islamists are attempting to establish a superior position for Islam over other religions in Western societies. Council on American-Islamic relations (CAIR) co-founder Omar Ahmad clearly expressed this Islamist design for the United States when he said to a Muslim audience in Fremont, California, in 1998 when he said: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.”

Islamists like Ahmed are carrying out this plan by using Western tolerance to relentlessly promote their intolerance. The Canadian ban, however, shows that tolerance has a limit and that a different set of political and social ideals exist in the new countries Muslims have chosen to emigrate to. And among these new political and social ideals they will have to accept is a ban on wearing face-veils at swearing-in ceremonies in citizenship courts in Canada.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Pages: 1 2

  • randy

    The pediphile catholic church should be shut down in canada.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    The Canadian government of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper showed new immigrants that Canadian and Western values are paramount in Canada on Monday when it banned face coverings for Muslim women at citizenship swearing-in ceremonies.

    Damn…they were allowing face coverings during citizenship swearing in ceremonies? Talk about suicidal! That thought was hilarious, until I remembered how completely ideologically incompetent our own federal government is with respect to Islam. As sadly they are probably doing the same damn thing. Nevertheless, they will simply put them back on as soon as the swearing in ceremony is concluded, as Muslims never ever assimilate and integrate.

    The prohibition occurred after the country’s immigration minister, Jason Kenney​, had received complaints from citizenship judges and other ceremony participants that it is “hard to tell whether veiled individuals are actually reciting the oath.

    It doesn't matter if their faces are covered or not or if they are reciting the oath or not, as Muslim never ever migrate to the West or anywhere else for that matter to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate via the eventual imposition of Sharia for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme.

    As a matter of fact, in country after country and anywhere and everywhere mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage is occurring in the world today, just like clockwork the vast overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants flat out refuse to assimilate and integrate and instead form segregated Muslim enclaves that over time morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia as fifth columns and in direct contravention to the laws of the states in which they reside. In fact, the government of France just a few years ago counted 758 Muslim no-go zones in France alone.

    Indeed, mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme is the most prevalent form of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad being employed against the West by the Islamic world today. Yet, it takes place completely unopposed, undetected, and unacknowledged simply because the West, per the dictates of PC multiculturalism, always conflates and morally equates jihad, which can be both violent and non-violent, with terrorism, which as its name implies is always only violent. Thus, this idiotic mistake, that is a product of PC multiculturalism that pervades our societies, enables as a consequence non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad to occur completely unopposed, undetected, and unacknowledged today.

    “Allowing a group to hide their faces while they are becoming members of our community is counter to Canada’s commitment to openness, equality and social cohesion,” Kenney stated.

    What about assimilation and integration?

    If they refuse to do so, they will not be allowed to take the oath and their status in Canada will remain as “permanent resident,” which does not give them the right to vote or hold certain jobs.

    Yeah right, like Muslim females have the right to vote and work in the Islamic world. Give me a break! Not to mention that they are going to inevitably be used as baby factories until they can't have anymore babies. Then at that time they will be divorced, shipped back overseas, and replaced with new childhood sexual slaves fresh from the Islamic world to start the process all over again. Damn…..Canada couldn't be any more unprepared and ill equipped to understand what it is they are facing.

    Veil-wearing women are usually associated with radical Islamic religious beliefs that include the destruction of liberal democracies and their replacement with theocracies based on sharia law.

    Buddy…that isn't radical Islamic religious beliefs; that's MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX ISLAMIC beliefs, and I hate to rain on this PC multicultural blind writer's parade, but Islam is not a religion. Instead, its a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology that masquerades as being a religion to dupe the societies it intends to subjugate into a very draconian form of Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia to make Islam supreme, which is the sole purpose, fundamental mission, and main goal of Islam.

    –continued below

    • Robert Weller

      I believe some conservative Christian churches tolerate, even encourage, their male members to push their wives around harshly to show them who is in charge. Should we tolerate that too. In this war-time era we cannot tolerate people availing themselves of a potential terrorist tool. Plus police and juries need to see the faces of people they are involved with to make intelligent decisions. This has nothing to do with human rights. I know what would happen if I went into one of Denver's ritzy shopping malls wearing a balaclava or ski mask. Surveillance cameras don't help all that much after a bomb has gone off.

      • Svend

        You "believe some conservative Christian churches tolerate, even encourage, their male members to push their wives around harshly to show them who is in charge".

        I've never heard of that. Maybe you have some proof, though?

        • InRussetShadows

          *laughs* You're asking a leftist for evidence?

      • ObamaYoMoma

        I believe some conservative Christian churches tolerate, even encourage, their male members to push their wives around harshly to show them who is in charge. Should we tolerate that too.

        Does the Bible encourage husbands to beat their wives as the Koran and Hadith does? Is it legal for Christian males to rape and beat their wives? Do Christian males force their females to be covered anytime they go in public? Do Christian males forbid Christian females from leaving the home without being escorted by a close male relative? Do Christians males forbid females from driving? Are Christian females forbidden from marrying non-Christians? Is female honor killings a common occurrence in Christian societies? Is a female's inheritance worth half that of a male's inheritance? Is a female's testimony worth half that of a male's testimony. Can Christian males take up to four wives simultaneously? Can Christian males divorce their wives for no reason by simply stating that I divorce thee? Can Christian males sell their female daughters into child sexual slavery to men old enough to be their great grandfather starting at age nine? Is it impossible to prove rape under Christianity because it requires four male witnesses to testify on the behalf of the female victim? Do female victims of rape, because the allegation of rape is impossible to prove, also get convicted of fornication as a result and sentenced to lashing or are stoned to death as a consequence?

        So apparently you are so ignorant of Islam that like a loon you would morally equate Islam with Christianity, even though Islam is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology that masquerades as being a religion to dupe the gullible societies it intends to subjugate into a very draconian form of Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia for the purpose of making Islam supreme.

        Are all Muslims and all other non-Christian unbelievers living in the West where the freedom of religion is an inalienable right violently oppressed and systematically persecuted when not outright slaughtered altogether like Christians and all other non-Muslim unbelievers living in the Islamic world as second-class dhimmi citizens are today?

        In this war-time era we cannot tolerate people availing themselves of a potential terrorist tool.

        With all due disrespect, Muslims never ever commit terrorism. Indeed, because terrorism is a manifestation of Western civilization only, in the Islamic world it is deemed to be un-Islamic and blasphemous, and therefore it is a capital offense. However, Jihad, which in stark contrast to terrorism can be both violent and non-violent, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme, and is a product of Islamic civilization only. In fact, non-violent jihad relative to violent jihad is employed astronomically far more prevalently against the West today, but because people like you are complete ignoramuses when it comes to understanding Islam, it occurs today completely unopposed, undetected, and unacknowledged.

        Indeed, mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest is the most prevalent form of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad employed today against the West. As Muslims never ever migrate to the West or anywhere else for that matter to assimilate and integrate but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate via the eventual imposition of Sharia for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme.

        Plus police and juries need to see the faces of people they are involved with to make intelligent decisions. This has nothing to do with human rights. I know what would happen if I went into one of Denver's ritzy shopping malls wearing a balaclava or ski mask. Surveillance cameras don't help all that much after a bomb has gone off.

        You don't get it. If Islam isn't outlawed and mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage isn't banned and reversed, the only kind of police there will be will be Islamic police. Moreover, Muslim females that are used as baby factories in the West don't perpetrate violence because most of them are forbidden from leaving their homes unless they are escorted by close male relatives, or otherwise they are too busy taking care of all the babies they are bearing for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest. Besides violent jihad in the West is incredibly counterproductive and harmful because it would invite unwanted close scrutiny, attention, and focus on Islam.

        You see there are two kinds of jihadists emanating from the Islamic world, violent jihadists and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists. In addition, the non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists relative to the violent jihadists by far constitutes the biggest faction, and the non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists believe that violent jihad is very counterproductive and harmful because it invites unwanted close scrutiny, attention, and focus on Islam and Islam's stealth global jihad. In fact, non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists to a very limited extent will actually on occasion cooperate with Western authorities to prevent violent jihad attacks.

      • InRussetShadows

        You may very well believe this, but that doesn't make it true. The difference is that when Christians behave that way it is IN CONTRADICTION TO THEIR FAITH. When Muslims murder kuffirs, it is BECAUSE MOHAMMED TOLD THEM TO DO SO. And really, when Christian churches produce suicide bombers, we can get concerned, and not a moment before.

    • scum

      Remember, in the 19th century all Catholics owed fealty to the Pope.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Remember, in the 19th century all Catholics owed fealty to the Pope.

        No, I don't remember. Sorry, I'm not that old. Nevertheless, the last time I checked the only people that are mentally incompetent enough to attempt to morally equate Islam with Christianity or any other faith-based religion for that matter, were completely unhinged like you.

    • InRussetShadows

      Get your own blog. Seriously. You suffer from logorrhea.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Thanks…I'm glad you enjoyed reading all of my excess words. I hope you learned something at the same time in the process.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    This is the view in France, which treats veiled Muslim women much more strictly than Canada.

    It doesn't matter if you outlaw all Muslim head coverings or not, just like it doesn't matter if states pass laws to prevent Sharia from entering our judicial court system, as Muslim immigrants will simply just go underground and breed like rabbits. There is only one common sense, sensible, and logical way of dealing with the problem, and that is outlawing Islam and banning and reversing mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage ASAP.

    Not to mention that here in the USA, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually just to accommodate mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, and never mind the fact that Muslims are the only immigrant group in the history of the USA that requires hundreds of billions of dollars on an annual basis just to accommodate.

    In addition, other than Sharia, Jihad, Islamic supremacism, barbarianism, backwardness, persecution of homosexuals, Jews, females, and non-Muslims, violent jihad attacks, threats of violent jihad attacks, incessant demands for more and more Sharia, fake charges of Islamophobia, honor killings, FGM, subversion for the eventual imposition of Sharia, etc., etc., etc., they have exactly nothing whatsoever to offer the USA that it doesn't already have.

    Meanwhile, we are contemplating massive budget cuts, massively increasing taxes, and implementing severe draconian cuts to our military just so we can continue accommodating mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage.

    Indeed, considering all of the budget negotiations between Republicans and Dhimmicrats that have occurred recently and that have all inevitably miserably failed, how many Republican and Dhimmicrat members of congress have you heard calling for outlawing Islam and banning and reversing mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage as a way of getting our financial house back in order? The answer is zero, which exposes that the Republican Party and the Dhimmicrat Party are really two sides of the same leftwing coin, and never mind the fact that the Left is totally in bed with Islam.

    • jacob

      I love to read your posters, as you say it the way it is…
      What if I tell you US consulates at Muslim countries give out visas like goig out of style ???
      And what about clerks at the US consulates in Israel being almost all ARABS ??

      Not long ago there was a big to do in FLORIDA when a Muslim CONVERT woman
      refused to have her drivers license picture taken without the face covered and very
      rightly so, the clerk refused to issue the license.
      I guess the end was that drivers license are a PRIVILEGE issued if the applicant complies with the requirements and one of them is that the bearer must de ID'd by his/her picture as otherwise, what's the use of the document…???.
      Security being the way it has become, must definitely outlaw burkhas and face
      coverings and fully enforce it whether DHIMMICRATS like it or not…..
      Else, the exit gates of the country are wide open and all of them can get the hell
      back to where they came from, as we surely didn't send for them

    • scum

      Standard racist garbage. Have fun with it, though.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Standard racist garbage. Have fun with it, though.

        If you are going to label my legitimate criticism that is 100 percent true as being racist, then by all means put your money where your unhinged mouth is and demonstrate it you loon! Hell, I would never say something I can't 100 percent back up, but then again I'm not a mentally deficient moonbat like you either.

    • myohmy

      you are so right… ban islam and don't give it any respect…. islam deserves no respect. It's evil and dangerous. We need to elect leaders who will not put political correctness ahead of common sense. BAN ISLAM AND DEPORT ANY MUSLIM THAT DOES NOT TRULY ASSIMILATE…. AND THAT MEANS ALMOST ALL OF THE.

  • Raymond in DC

    "The Harper government was more than correct in banning the veil for Muslim women when taking the citizenship oath to their new country."

    Surely someone will suggest yet another "accommodation", like holding a women-only ceremony with a female judge during which the veil is removed, then put back on. So why limit the ban only to the brief citizenship ceremony?

    When I was much younger living in Florida I sometimes saw a sign on a store-front that read "No shirt – No shoes – No service". Canada (and the US) need a sign at their points of entry that reads "No face – No entry". Covering has implications beyond the obvious security-related; it is a rejection of the country's culture and values.

  • StephenD

    "‘The niqab is tradition,” he said, ‘It has no connection to religion.’ ”

    You would think if someone WANTS to become part of a community they are willing to assimilate into it of their own free will. Ahhh, but we are talking about adherents to Islam in which there is no “free will.” The women MUST obey their men.

    Regardless, if you profess with your mouth your willingness to become a citizen of a country and yet refuse to assimilate into its culture and abandon the coverings of your former, your actions speak louder than your words and your application should be denied. No other culture has so adamantly attempted to maintain ALL of the trappings of its former culture in lieu of the host culture. You want to be a Canadian or American or European…act like it. Desert dress is for the desert. You’re not at an oasis in need of continued protection form the sand, sun and wind. IF your men can’t contain themselves from raping you if you’re not covered, that is their problem not the host countries problem. Behave as civilized people or get the hell out.

    • scum

      "Behave as civilized people or get the hell out"? You're crackin' me up, dude.

  • tanstaafl

    Muslims are not immigrants, they are invaders.

    A pious Muslim works tirelessly to replace the laws of any country with sharia law. Sharia is a "legal" system devised by sociopathic mysoginistic bullies. No one should ever be subjected to the work of evil that is sharia law, even if they desire it.

    And no country should allow the immigration of enemies into its heartland.

    • scum

      So you're willing to abolish the death penalty?

      • tanstaafl

        Are you off your meds again?

  • AntiSharia

    When will the west wake up and understand that we're at war with the Muslim world, whether we like it or not? They're ways and our ways are not compatible, no matter what the propagandist says or the deluded believes. If we want to save our culture(or what's left of it) we must institute a ban on Muslim immigrants. No more Pakistanis, Turks, Arabs, or what not to tear down western civilization from the inside.

  • randy

    Canada was stolen from the native people. All christians should be kicked out of north america

    • Ghostwriter

      randy,that statement is so unbelievably stupid,I'm just left scratching my head on how to reply to it. It's that dumb.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Hey Randy, we don't fricking care!

      • scum

        Again, racist garbage. If might makes right, then we needn't talk about values or morals, only naked aggression.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Again, racist garbage.

          Again, back it up! Put your money where your unhinged mouth is!

          If might makes right, then we needn't talk about values or morals, only naked aggression.

          Not with you. You couldn't be more unhinged and suicidal at the same time. Hence, talking about it with you would be analogous to Chinese torture and would require more brain damage than its worth.

        • InRussetShadows

          It's racist garbage to say that we don't fricken care? Ok, I find that hard to believe, but let's assume that it's "racist garbage" to call somebody's moronic statement about Canada being stolen, stupid. Again, huh? The statement itself IS pretty stupid. I don't see Randy living by his words, do you? But that kind of "everyone else has to live by what I say except me" is typical of the left.

          The statement is stupid as well as it assumes that everyone who conquered Canada was a Christian — and knowing history, I have my doubts on that one. (First you'd have to determine whether those people were in fact Christian — that is, were they born again. Good luck.) The logic also fails because it presumes inherited guilt; it assumes that all living Canadians are guilty of what some people may (or may not) have done in the past, but such is silly. A person's deeds die with them, and I'm not responsible for what they have done. Furthermore, what about immigrants to Canada? They fail even the leftist logic test, because they weren't born in the country! Doh!

          But the logic is stupid in yet another way: it presumes that "giving the land back" would make everything alright again. However, the people who ostensibly committed the crimes are dead, and so are the people that they harmed. Thus, if there were any crimes, no restitution can be made!

          The legality is questionable, too. When does the statue of limitations run out on such things? 100 years? 200? Ever? Do the legal entities that existed then even exist today? Why don't the Scots go and sue Italy for what happened with the Emperor Hadrian?

          Lastly, the logic is immoral. If you're holding on to hating dead people for what was done to other dead people 200 years ago, you're not only borrowing your hate, but you're living a pretty sad, degenerate spiritual life. To think that life consists of having money, having land, or whatever, is entirely missing the point of living, and a thirst for revenge corrodes you inside.

          So yeah? We don't fricking care, Randy.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            I see you don't always practice what you preach, as you are also afflicted by logorrhea too.

    • UCSPanther

      You first, pal.

      Proud to be a sneering imperialist…

      • scum

        Ah, yes, even the panther took the bait. Wow… If you're proud to be an imperialist, I assume you accuse Bush of abandoning the oil in Iraq.

    • Steve

      Since the Arabs stole Israel from the Jews, I presume you also believe they should be kicked out.

  • Outis

    I used to work at the Registrar's office in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at the University of Toronto. One of my duties was to provide students and alumni with transcripts and copies of diplomas. One day a woman came in wearing a niqab. She asked for a copy of her transcript. I didn't want to serve a masked woman, but university policy was in her favor. I asked for her student ID according to policy and was shocked to see that in her school-issued ID photo she was wearing her niqab! To this day, I have no idea whether I gave the transcript to the correct person and I still wonder what the point of issuing an ID card to a masked person is. This incident showed me that political correctness had already run amok at Canada's finest institution of higher learning. Hopefully they too will soon wake up to this nonsense as the Federal Government has. Still, I won't hold my breath.

  • Marty

    How refreshing, a head of government with some backbone and a country that is interested in preserving democratic principles. Good for the Canadians. They aren't even asking another democracy, Israel, to commit national suicide by offering further territorial concessions to genocidal muslims.

    • scum

      What democratic principles would those be – refusing someone their freedoms?

      • JoJoJams

        ??scum?? What the h3ll are you talking about?? Are you really so foolishly ignorant?? wow! I hope you can't breed! The world needs sane and reasonable adults – not over-grown children with no logical sense!

  • tanstaafl

    "Islamic" clothing is just another tool to oppress women. It should be banned world-wide.

    • Christian rightie

      Well said tanstaafl

  • InRussetShadows

    Wait a minute! I knew something was missing from this thread: Ron Paul! Hey all you Paultards out there, doesn't this line up with your beliefs? Why or why not? You do know that Canada telling the Islamists to go pound sand will encourage riots and murders in the Middle East, so they shouldn't do it, right? Right, guys?

  • WilliamJamesWard

    No sane person wants Muslims in their community or Nation for that matter as
    they do not assimilate, do not want to become like the host Nationals and are
    there to colonize and subvert. However considering all in all with this story I
    would think a compromise would be fair, if I had the say I would have them all
    wear a paper bag on their heads at all times, 24/7 and make no exceptions.

  • BS77

    One longs for the day when this hideous ideology is completely forgotten……

  • myohmy

    Someday I hope citizens will hold elected leaders responsible for the damage they are doing to our society with their politically correct insanity. Ban islam and deport all muslims who won't assimilate…. really assimilate. Ban and deport every last one of them. And when that happens they'll still be killing each other because muslims cannot be happy unless they're killing someone for allah…

  • Christian rightie

    Well done to the Canadian government :-)

  • Edward

    God Bless Canada!

    • randy

      Stolen native lands

  • Ryan

    You are looking for donation so what do you think about if Saudi Arabia stopped sending its people to study in Canada.i guess Canada would be poor. Thus, u would lose your computer which has helped u to say what it shouldn't be said.

  • Mr Khan

    The ban on muslim women wearing a Niqab during swearing in cermonies or laws to prevent them wearing Niqab’s in public places is criminalising Muslim women for simply dressing modestly. By forcing Muslim women to unveil, the Canadian government has simply exposed the deficiencies, weaknesses and flaws of Western secular liberalism. The denial of medical treatment, access to education, limitation of freedom of movement, refusing child benefit payments, and consequently rendering to second class status women who hold an alternative view to secular philosophy, reflects the religious apartheid and fascist nature of Canadian secular fundamentalism. It has shown itself to be an intolerant ideology where women are secluded from society simply for expressing modesty, where all talk of human rights is clearly a fallacy, and where freedom, equality and justice extends to only those who tow the secular line.
    Women forced to adhere to the values of Canadian citizenship should presumably be taught about an ideology that teaches contempt for religion; that the Canadiah view of the woman's dignity is to criminalise her for her religious dress; and that freedom extends to the right to exploit women through pornography and prostitution but not to the right for a woman to follow her religious convictions free from harassment. Supporters of niqab bans argue that the veil cuts women off from public life – the irony is that it is insults, prejudice, and bans against the dress that have achieved just that – imprisoned women to their homes.
    The justifications for the ban are ludicrous. They criminalise the Muslim woman in order to set her free; strip her of her rights in order to secure her choice; stigmatize her in order to protect her; and subjugate her in order to liberate her! The irony seems to have been lost by the Canadian parliament, composed primarily of men, that dictation to Muslim women how they should NOT dress and ordering them how to think through threats of fines is the height of male patriarchy – where's the empowerment in this? Muslim women need no lessons in ‘female dignity' from secular states that celebrate topless beaches and secure liberty to express promiscuity while outlawing modes of modesty. Nor do they need lectures on women's subjugation by representatives of a system that gives freedom to the objectification of women on fashion catwalks, and though pornography and prostitution but labels as outdated the belief of a woman's honour as being sacrosanct.
    If the Canadian government wanted to be a torch-bearer for women's dignity, then why not appoint commissions investigating the degrading impact that prostitution, lap-dancing clubs, and the pornography industry have on the ‘dignity' of all women within the society – all of which run freely in Canada and other capitalist liberal states under the premise of freedom of expression and driven by the pursuit of profit. Surely, for those who have a sincere concern for women's rights, raising for debate these forms of degrading, dehumanizing, and devaluing women should be more pressing than a handful of Muslim women covering their faces out of religious devotion and modesty.
    This racist, divisive piece of legislation will do nothing but throw fuel to the fire of racial tensions between communities. Canadian politicians have been playing politics with their communities, competing in racist anti-Islamic rhetoric and policies to curry favour amongst their rising population of far-right voters, regardless of its detriment on society. It demonstrates that secular politics has no qualms in stigmatising, and whipping up frenzy and hysteria about its religious minorities or playing on irrational fears regarding Islam and Muslims in order to bag a few extra votes. The cut-throat opportunistic nature of secular politics is clear for all to see, where instigating prejudice against a community is an acceptable electioneering tool to win a few racist votes and where politicians seem more than willing to use the Muslim woman as political fodder to feed their public rankings. The alienation of Muslims and a divided society appears to be acceptable collateral damage to secure political mileage….

  • Mr Khan

    This ‘veil debate' has exposed the failure of secular states to create harmonious cohesive societies where all feel equally respected. Discriminatory government policies and cheap secular politics that unscrupulously exploits xenophobia for political ambition, has fanned the flames of racism and fascism, stoking tensions between communities. It has provided ammunition for far-right groups with anti-immigrant agendas increasing racially motivated abuse. Bigoted vitriol was given a platform, entertained, and tolerated under the umbrella of strengthening national identity. It is all this that fuels prejudice and divides communities – not women's clothing. Secularism's aversion to religious pluralism has nurtured an environment where racial hatred has thrived.
    Other arguments which revolve around points like 'they need to be identified in case of crime' etc. should not be allowed into this debate, because it would necessitate the banning of anything that effects identification. This would include things like hooded tops for example; a piece of clothing that allows one to become 'less' identifiable should one choose to use it in that way. It would also mean that masks should be banned, even if it means you are only going to a fancy dress party because it is possible to commit a crime on the way to the venue. In other words, under no circumstances should anybody be allowed to wear anything that prevents another member of public from pasting an image of their face in his/her mind. This seems quite ridiculous; and what makes it even more ridiculous is that any such clothing must also be banned from the market—something that is only reasonable. If something is banned, then it is also illegal to sell it; like class ‘A’ drugs. Hooded tops and every kind of mask will not be banned however, not only because they help the Canadian economy—be it slightly—but because it would be stupid to do so. Nevertheless, it would be necessary if the argument for banning the Niqab is based on identification; otherwise the Muslim community will justifiably feel marginalised, victimised, targeted and every other negative state of being that results from having a law that only seems to apply to them.
    Niqab bans enforced in France and Belgium and also under debate within other Western secular states such as Spain, Australia, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have exposed the failure of secular liberalism to accommodate the rights of its religious minorities. Laws have been formed that target the minority based upon the prejudice of the majority. While secularism espouses freedom and claims to liberate Muslim women from lives of oppression, in reality it has treated them in true authoritarian fashion, legalizing religious intolerance and forcing them to relinquish their religious convictions in exchange for access to basic human rights. No longer can it be acceptable for advocates of the ideology to lay claim to its universality and neutrality in securing rights for all. So, although debate in the West has focused on Islamic dress and whether it is appropriate for Western secular societies, the real debate to be had is whether secularism that is failing on so many fronts is appropriate to be idealized as the best system by which to organize society…….

  • Mr Khan

    These niqab bans are simply desperate actions taken by desperate governments to try to stem the rise of Muslim women rejecting Western liberalism and adopting Islam as their spiritual, social, and political path in life. It is an attempt at forced secular conversion – forcing Muslim women to leave their Islamic values in exchange for Western ones. The idea of increasing numbers of women who having lived the Western dream, tasted the fruits of Western liberalism being unconvinced by its ideals, and now turning to Islam appears to be too hard a concept for die-hard secularist politicians to stomach. As Andre Gerin, the chair of the the French niqab commission said,"..the burqa is the tip of the iceberg…..Islamism really threatens us". Ultimately, the outlawing of religious dress codes by Western governments symbolizes a failure to convince Muslim women intellectually of the superiority of secular liberal values. It speaks volumes about the intellectual fragility of any ideology that needs to use bully-boy fear tactics rather than strength of argument to persuade individuals to embrace its values.
    So while many Canadian and Western politicians have labelled the hijab and niqab as ‘symbols of oppression', these veil bans are also a symbol. They are a ‘symbol of a weak ideology' that needs to resort to force of law rather than force of argument to convince and a ‘symbol of the flawed and failing ideology of secularism', whose staunch advocates would rather play politics with women's clothes than engage in serious debate about the true causes of women's oppression – including the detrimental impact of liberal culture on women's lives and women's respect.
    In this increasingly intense climate of fear being generated around Muslim communities in the West, aimed at coercing them into leaving their Islamic values in exchange for Western ones, it is vital that Muslims continue to hold firmly onto our Islamic beliefs. We should remember the promise from our Creator سبحانه وتعالى of the rewards awaiting those who are patient and steadfast in their faith during times of adversity and difficulty….

  • Mr Khan

    One of the most extraordinarily noticeable traits of the proponents of these views is that they never seem to share information on what 'Muslim women' want. It does not help the debate if we are always told what Jean Charest and any other type of human beings who are not Muslim and a woman, want. Why is some serious light not shed on this issue, instead of the crappy kind from some shaded desk lamp? Is it because the stats will read unfavourably, against their cause?
    In fact! It is very likely they (the likes of Charest) do not even have enough information to make a judgement either way. Lawmakers should be asking for an investigation into this very issue. WHAT? You mean Charest was not in a position to say 'For your information I already have looked into it, and they do indeed need to be freed and here is the evidence'? It seems very strange, foolish and unleader-like to make a public issue out of something which affects approximately 1% of the Canadian population, without even having a basis for it other than prejudice. It seems like many people think that it is a given fact that Muslims women are always forced to wear the Niqab. Have these people ever entertained the possibility that these women might actually believe that their God—not their husbands—prefers them to wear it and would consider a ban on wearing the Niqab disheartening? There is no justification in banning the burka on grounds of freedom. Neither Charest nor any of his supporters have the necessary information to claim that a law banning the Niqab will liberate most of those who wear it; and if they are sincere in saying that all they want to do is free people, then they should have no problem in scrapping the idea if it is shown that most of them are happy.
    Sadly, it seems that there is no way of them accepting defeat. If a Canadian court denies a veiled, Muslim woman citizenship because her 'practice of Islam was incompatible with Canadian values.' In other words, what the woman wants to do is intellectually insignificant. If she is not happy with the Niqab then she is alright. If she is happy with the Niqab—showing no sign of husband brutality—then she is a radical. If an investigation into Canadian Muslim women does take place and it turns out that the majority of those who wear the Niqab, do so out of their own will, they will be deemed radicals who simply need to be taught that they are wrong. In light of this, it can be argued that Charests not justified in banning the burka on grounds of freedom—like he argued—because that is not his actual reason. If it was he would have campaigned to allow Muslim women to do what they want It does beg the question: Why then 'is' he trying to ban the Niqab?' I do not know, but as things stand he has not presented anything good enough to do so.
    What are the implications if the Niqab is not banned? Nothing. There are many things that are banned, like drugs; despite a section of society preferring them not to be banned. Not banning them however, would have a negative effect on people's physical and mental health. There are groups who advocate racial supremacy that are banned; and not banning them could stir up racial tensions as these groups propagate their ideas. Can a reason like that be given in order to ban the Niqab? Are there any catastrophic, negative consequences in ‘not’ banning the Niqab? There do not seem to be any, and if there are—I do not know them but—they are not severe enough to justify a ban.
    In conclusion, the only good reason to ban the Niqab would be if Niqab wearers are forced to wear them against their will. We do not know if that is the case, so as things stand there is no justification in banning the Niqab in Canada. It is also worth noting that the Canadian authorities probably won’t try to find out if Muslim women choose to wear it, but even if they do, the findings will be discarded.

  • scum

    There's a difference between "ANYWHERE in public," and "you can't walk into a bank wearing a ski mask." Soon they'll just outlaw Halloween masks, too. Talk about federal overreach…