September 28, 2015

"I don’t understand why this is an issue!" Media STILL clueless on niqab

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder
 

“I don’t understand why this is an issue!” That is the refrain I hear time and again from progressive commentators and media types when the debate over the niqab and the citizenship ceremony comes up.

And that's if they are being nice and not declaring the overwhelming majority of Canadians to be simple-minded racists.

Our poll of 1,505 Canadians found 78% agree that face coverings should be removed. That kind of support cuts across party lines, demographic lines, cultural lines.

Every political party would love to have 78% support for their plans. Few will.

Yet in English Canada the media is universally appalled that this topic is even being discussed.

When Zunera Ishaq’s court victory came two weeks ago, the stories that did appear in English Canada were pretty much all sympathetic to her, questioning why the big, bad Conservatives won’t just let her be and respect the courts.

As I pointed out in a column last week, none of these people were standing up for another, Christian, religious minority when they fought not to show their faces, via photographs on their drivers licenses. The arguments from both sides were similar, and the Hutterites won twice at lower court and then lost at the Supreme Court. No lectures on a mean bigoted government back then. No sympathetic national stories on the plight of Wilson Colony.

In Quebec, the story is much different. Media in French Canada are treating this as a real story and at least one political party is feeling the wrath of voters. The NDP has dropped several points in poll after poll in Quebec over their support of wearing the niqab to citizenship ceremonies.

To the NDP, and Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, this is about multiculturalism and individual rights.

To the rest of Canada, this is about changing centuries of tradition in favour of a foreign practice that treats women as second-class citizens.

Let’s deal with the false individual rights claim first.

Many dispute the idea that the niqab is a religious requirement rather than a foreign, Saudi -promoted cultural practice. There is no mention of the niqab – or burka – in the Quran. There is no mandate for Muslim women to wear it.

But let’s for the sake of argument grant that they sincerely believe it is. Does the requirement to show their face unjustly impair their rights?

No.

Muslim women around the world, whether in Canada or in Islamic countries, already face restrictions on where face coverings can be worn. There are times, including boarding airplanes, getting driver's licenses or even attending the Hajj pilgrimage, where Muslim women must remove their veils.

To claim that veils can be removed at all of these times but not for a citizenship ceremony is beyond ridiculous.

“Well then, just let them remove it in front of another woman,” we are told.

In a word, no.

If we are a society that treats men and women as equal, why would we accept that members of one religious group will only interact with government officials of one sex and not the other? This goes against Canadian values.

There are certain Christian and Jewish sects that segregate men and women to a degree. Would we allow men from those groups to refuse to deal with a women judge whether at a citizenship ceremony or in court? Of course not -- and we should not allow the reverse here.

Multiculturalism is supposed to be about celebrating diversity in Canada, about allowing people to keep the cultures of the lands they came from when they come to Canada. It is not supposed to be about changing Canada into the land they came from.

Ms Ishaq, like countless immigrants before her, came to Canada for what this country has to offer. She left Pakistan for a reason.

Her goal upon arrival should not be to turn Mississauga into Lahore.

Canada is an open society and part of that openness, beyond welcoming immigrants, is that we see each other’s faces.

I don’t like seeing the niqab in the street – which in Ottawa is easy to do – but I won’t call for an outright ban on it . If you want to dress that way, knock yourself out. But when taking oaths, swearing testimony, serving the public or being served by it, then it is perfectly reasonable that Canadians expect to see the face of the person we are interacting with.

Despite the claims, the inferences of those in the media – or politicians with the NDP or Liberals – the majority of Canadians, the 78% who want faces uncovered at citizenship ceremonies, are not racist.

They simply want to see Canadian values upheld, and that includes showing your face.

 

READ Brian Lilley's book CBC Exposed -- it's been called "the political book of the year.”

Believe that Muslim face coverings have no place in Canada?
The Rebel Store has the t-shirt for you:
Our NEW design -- "Separation of Mosque and State"

Judges say Muslim women can wear burqas while pledging Canadian citizenship.
SIGN OUR PETITION now, demanding that the federal government appeal this outrageous decision:

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-10-09 14:05:10 -0400
It is against the Muslim (Sharia) law for a Muslim to live in any land that is not ruled by Muslims.
Muslims only recognize God’s Law or Sharia. They do not recognize man made laws such as the Canadian Constitution,the Parliament of Canada, the Criminal Code, the Citizenship Act or any provincial laws such as the traffic act or municipal bylaws all of when are made by men (and women).

If a Muslim woman was really devout and serious about her faith she would not even enter Canada which is dominated by the kuffar (unbelievers) mainly Christians. Any Muslim woman (or man) who attends a Canadian citizenship ceremony has violated enough Sharia law to keep her burning in hell for eternity. Mohammed the Prophet of Islam has informed us that Hell is mainly populated by women.

After all of this our Muslim woman becomes a super hypocrite by insisting that she is so religious that she has to wear her niqab during the citizenship ceremony.

This is really just an excuse for a court case which if successful will not only make it legal to wear the niqab in citizenship ceremonies, but it will make it easier to get female genital mutilation, honor killings, killing apostates, stoning to death for adultery, amputations of hands and feet, crucifixtions and beheadings accepted in Canadian law. This is part of a campaign for the Islamization of Canada. This campaign will not stop.

If we can not say no to the niqab, we will be less able to say no to the rest of Islam which comes after it.
commented 2015-10-07 13:12:33 -0400
First I’d like to hear from Zunera Ishaq’s husband? or father? how they totally approve of her not wearing the niqab. It’s is just her own idea. No? Then I’d like to recommend that if the niqab is just an innocuous piece of cloth, then the white Ku Klux Klan hood with the eye slits should be equally acceptable as it is very important to the person under it. And what about the Occupy Mom’s basement Guy Fawkes mask? Let’s be inclusive on this issue.
commented 2015-10-06 20:24:13 -0400
Again the progressive disorder inverts reality and calls the majority of Canadians racist while handing-out special rights and privileges to unappreciative ingrates. Misguided liberal cheerleaders siding with Muslim women that refuse to conform to Canadian norms and proactively renounce wearing the niqab face covering during a citizenship ceremony. Also calling us stupid. Quite frankly we must be to allow this. It’s incredibly obvious multiculturalism and stupid political correctness leads to this cultural destruction and division. All part of the progressive Islamic take-over of Western civilization that’s happening before our eyes.

Since the fundamental teachings of Islam and Western democracy are not compatible why not set forth a few reasonable accommodations. Muslims must renounce tenets of Islam to adhere to our Canadian Constitution. Renounce the death penalty for blasphemy that denies freedom of speech. Declare the equality of women and the equality of non-Muslims. And of course, no face coverings at a Canadian citizenship ceremony or for other official purposes. For that matter, if you want to be accepted, respected and trusted, you might want to avoid face coverings.
commented 2015-10-03 12:08:23 -0400
I don’t know if Zunera Ishaq’s claim she wishes to exercise religious freedom are sincere or the coercion of her culture forcing her to manipulate the media. What I do know is the experiences I have had that justify my suspicions. I was teaching Math in a High School in Etobicoke in a room that had no windows, along the back hall at Central Etobicoke. I didn’t like the room since you had no view of the outside. It was a concrete block bunker. It also meant no one could see in. I was usually available to help students after school. A few times a niqab wearing Muslim student would come. She would close the door, sit down and remove her niqab. She would then ask two or three questions. Always word problems since her problem was difficulties with English.

I was moved to have this woman come into my class and enjoy a few minutes where she could feel free to be herself and enjoy being treated with equality and respect. We didn’t discuss the issue of her choice to wear the niqab. It seemed obvious enough when shielded from the coercion of the her culture, she would choose to not wear the niqab.
commented 2015-10-02 23:15:10 -0400
Our former minister of immigration, Jason Kenney, was right: this is not an Islam issue because the niqab is not in their religion; except for the fact that it is mandated by nutjob Muslim men. Brial Lilley is correct. Even most Quebecois se this. Down with Trudeau and Mulcair!
commented 2015-09-30 02:27:08 -0400
“You need to get to a certain level here before you are worth my time” – JDS

Speaks volumes and undertones. What an a$$, considering the content of his/her objections.
commented 2015-09-30 02:27:06 -0400
“You need to get to a certain level here before you are worth my time” – JDS

Speaks volumes and undertones. What an a$$, considering the content of his/her objections.
commented 2015-09-30 02:27:05 -0400
“You need to get to a certain level here before you are worth my time” – JDS

Speaks volumes and undertones. What an a$$, considering the content of his/her objections.
commented 2015-09-29 23:41:41 -0400
I lived in Southall Middlesex 1953-4. I cycled each day to the EMI at Hayes. What a happy go lucky place Southall was. Friday night with a paypacket in cash and the town was all enjoyment. Whether to the cinema or the pubs or even to Southall Town Hall where a little culture was introduced. Saw Dame Myra Hess pianist there.
Now hardly any white people there and those that do stay, (11%) are said to be made to feel uncomfortable.
Just not right in my opinion. Lived on Featherstone Rd, opposite the Featherstone Hotel.
commented 2015-09-29 23:01:10 -0400
“Multiculturalism … It is not supposed to be about changing Canada into the land they came from.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/woman-at-centre-of-niqab-controversy-tells-court-she-wants-citizenship-in-time-to-vote

From the article: “The right to vote, in particular, is very important to me. I feel this is a way in which I can directly have a say in how the country that I love so much should be run.”

Ishaq loves Canada so much she wants to vote so she can have a say in “how the country should be run”. I thought she was already telling Canadians how it should be run according to her lawsuit.
commented 2015-09-29 22:08:22 -0400
Charles, the population of Southhall is primarily Hindu (mainly Punjabi expats) and Sikhs. I know all those brown people look the same, but…
commented 2015-09-29 20:20:47 -0400
Saw this pattern emerge again and again 50 years ago in my native England. Immigrants from Muslim countries flocking to England for a better life and then doing everything in their power to recreate the very conditions they fled.
On our way to the airport to leave for Canada we had to pass through Southall, once a middle class suburb, long since known as little India. We saw just one western man standing at a bus stop. Otherwise the population was totally Indian. They had no intention ( and I’m sure still don’t ) of integrating into English society at all
commented 2015-09-29 11:52:09 -0400
I’ve mentioned this is an issue of reverse discrimination for a while designed to prevent “mischief” between themselves and single marriage available candidates in this instance at a citizenship ceremony no less. This also suggests a person face is a sexual object which I don’t think the courts would agree with or they would have ordered all us to cover up. I also suggest if this issue was reversed and it was only men who were allowed to see a person’s face women’s groups would be up in arms.
commented 2015-09-29 10:07:42 -0400
@ Wayne Allen – you will be castigated for your comments however I have lived them in Afghanistan, Syria, Gaza, and more.

Bring them to Canada at your own risk – the entitled Canadian has no idea what will happen.

And the Charter will be used against us – of that you can be certain as it will ensure our downfall – there is no section in that charter that protects the Canadian way of life that we all grew up in – in fact it will allow Canada to be torn apart.
commented 2015-09-29 09:53:27 -0400
If the Islamists win on the niqabs at citizenship ceremonies it will only be the start of a long line of demands such as:
The right to have female genital mutilation performed on girls.
The right to engage in pedophilia.
The right to kill apostates from Islam.
The right to rape unveiled women.
The right to marry underage girls.
The right to practice slavery.
The right of parents to kill children and grandchildren.
The right to kill homosexuals.
The right to kidnap, rape, kill and rob the kuffar.
The right to ignore the laws of Canada.
The Charter of Rights is going to be invoked to establish all of these rights.
It does not, however, protect anyone from the Human Rights Commission
who is charged with making someone feel bad.
commented 2015-09-29 09:04:10 -0400
Thanks jimmy the question is how if someone dislikes Muslims how it’s racist. Don’t talk down to me. You know nothing about who I dislike. I don’t care for white people who think they can save the world by making others feel bad for looking out for the best interest for Canada.
commented 2015-09-29 01:50:39 -0400
The Bloc Quebecois and the Conservatives certainly have public opinion on their side when they say they want to ban the Niqab. Unfortunately one divisive issue does not make a political platform; it only reinforces the views of hard-line supporters. Gilles Duceppe and Stephen Harper can grin that they have solidified their base, but neither one is attracting new support.
commented 2015-09-29 01:38:41 -0400
Dale,

I never saw your question. Are you new here? You need to get to a certain level here, before you are worth my time. :)

It make you a bigot and someone who discriminates people. It’s wrong to hate Muslims – just because of the actions of the fundamentalists.
commented 2015-09-29 00:55:14 -0400
Jimmy…………….you still haven’t answered my simple question. You like to talk down to other people, but wont answer a simple farmers question…….I know there are a lot of good people here that would love to here your answer
commented 2015-09-29 00:48:04 -0400
Justin Trudeau; The great defender of terrorist rights. Hail Justin. LOL
Now, not only is Justin an idiot, But anybody that supports him is. DUUUUUUUUUUUH
commented 2015-09-28 21:39:43 -0400
To hell with muslim demands. They never stop making them and it’s all part of assimilating Canadians to Sharia wise up … they are OUR ENEMIES all of them. Those who are not active jihadists, support them by their donations and compliance with their iman’s wishes.

Canada is for Canadians all others …. “off is the general direction I would like you to fuck”
commented 2015-09-28 21:33:32 -0400
A short story . 3 females are sitting in the waiting room for their doctors appointment. 2 are middle aged and one is about 30years of age. A bearded man walks in ,looks around and then allows his wife to enter. She is shrouded from head to toe. He goes to the receptionist and in a loud voice -demands that his wife must be hidden from prying eyes. His demands are met and the shrouded individual is taken behind a curtain. Hubby sits down facing the 3 women and stares and ogles them. He stares at their faces ,their arms ,their legs , their crotches. True story. He saw nothing wrong with this. This is the Arrogance of the Niqab . I don’t understand why the MSM does not follow up on the Males which ,at best, only rape a female with their eyes.
commented 2015-09-28 20:13:48 -0400
80% of Canadians favor PMSH’s stance on this issue. This is a problem for MSM. MSM wishes for NDP or the Liberals to come into power. One can only imagine why $$$$$$$$$$$. This is why they are trying to water down this subject.
Let the left say what they want. They can’t comprehend the importance of “80%”. This number means it is importance to our culture, traditions and our laws.
commented 2015-09-28 17:18:44 -0400
The only reason that I was able to become, a Proud, Canadian Citizen, back in 1968, was because I WAS NOT, wearing a Halloween Mask. Back then I would have been arrested.
commented 2015-09-28 17:11:00 -0400
It would appear that the Trolls are getting restless, three of them jumping around, like agitated Fleas in Justin Mulcair’s armpit. The Election must be getting close.
commented 2015-09-28 16:44:51 -0400
Terry Ruden face not shown while taking oath ,and what will be your excuse when they whine about phot ID? of course you will play the race card.
commented 2015-09-28 16:42:33 -0400
Jimmy Da Silva NP is not conservative , and when has the Rebel lied? Please enlighten us? And please show me where the CBC reported on the Levin trial or apologized for the troop torture lies or the lies on the ROb Ford 911 call? Sorry but the media party lies and omits all the time. That is not what i would call real news.