October 09, 2015

Canada's proposed niqab restrictions mild compared to those in some Muslim countries

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder

Did you hear? The Egyptian government is anti-Muslim.

It’s true, in elections that will take place at roughly the same time as ours, October 18-19, all women wearing the niqab will be forced to remove it while voting or be refused their ballot reports the Egyptian news service Ahram.

Spokesperson to the Higher Elections Committee (HEC) Omar Marawan has said the law stipulates that all niqab-wearing women will only cast ballots if they remove the face veil while voting, for identity verification purposes. Otherwise they will be barred.

They must really hate Muslims in Egypt since they have already barred women wearing face coverings in the largest Islamic school in the country. Al-Azhar is the most prestigious Sunni Muslim university in the world according to some and they don’t allow the face veil on campus.

Just recently Cairo University banned teachers from wearing the niqab citing poor communication by veil wearers.

Those dammed anti-Muslim Egyptians.

Of course I am being sarcastic, the people doing the banning in Egypt are themselves Muslim and like in Canada, most Muslim women there do not wear the niqab but enough do to leave those of us concerned looking for rules.

I pointed out the rules in Egypt and in other Muslim countries to my niqab defending friends on Newstalk 580 in Ottawa and was told that didn’t matter because those were not democratic countries. Funny, I was told requiring women to show their faces in certain situations was anti-Muslim, yet presented with evidence to the contrary of course the argument changed.

Well, I’m not going to change the argument.

Niqab supporters have been claiming for years now, not months, that we must accept the creeping sharia that says niqabed women cannot show their face to anyone but another woman, if at all, out of respect for their religion. If that argument is true, and I disagree whole-heartedly, then Islamic universities and the government of an Islamic country like Egypt must hold some sway.

If the most prestigious Islamic university in the Sunni world can ban niqabs and the Egyptian government can require their removal for voting then surely we can do the same here. Islam has been in Canada for more than a century, with the niqab only coming to this country with the push of Saudi Wahabism here and around the world.

In Egypt they have been dealing with Islam for centuries, the vast majority of its inhabitants are Muslim, I think they know what they are doing.

Other Muslim countries have restrictions on the niqab as well.

Tunisia, Turkey and Azerbaijan all ban the niqab.

Turkey, to answer my radio colleagues that don’t believe we should look to Muslim countries like Egypt for our guidance on the niqab, is actually a democracy. So too is France, Belgium and Holland – three European countries that have banned the niqab outright.

The often far left European Court of Human Rights has upheld the bans France has enacted on not only the niqab but also all kinds of other outward religious garb.

Surely Canada’s mild request for people to show their faces in certain situations, like citizenship ceremonies, must seem benign compared to the outright bans in democratic Europe.

As for Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s musings about following Quebec’s lead and banning the niqab in the civil service there are practical reasons for this. Beyond most people wanting to know and see who they are being served by, the simple fact is most civil servants, at least in Ottawa, require photo identification to get into work.

From employees at the House of Commons, Health Canada, Citizenship, military establishments and more, the tens of thousands of civil servants in Ottawa need to show their photo ID and have it matched to their face just to get into their workplace. How effective would such photo ID be if the person entering their workplace had their face covered?

I am puzzled by the ongoing support for the niqab by so-called feminists in Canada. By any objective standard the niqab subjugates women and yet they defend it. As I have said elsewhere, none of the people speaking up for niqab wearers on religious freedom grounds stood up for the Hutterites in their court battle which has similar facts and themes.

No one at this point is calling for a full ban of women wearing the niqab in public as we have seen in Europe, it is for mild restrictions, the kind of restrictions that we see in Muslim countries already. Canada is on solid ground here and will remain so, unless Justin Trudeau or Tom Mulcair win the election.


JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

SIGN THE PETITION to Elections Canada, demanding all Canadians show their face when voting.

Help build The Rebel’s new studio, literally brick by brick!
LEARN MORE at BuildTheDream.ca

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-12-30 22:50:17 -0500
Tarek Fatah, a Toronto Muslim who criticizes some practices of Islam, says that wearing the niqab or head scarf is making a political statement. Zunera Ishaq who won the right to wear a niqab at her citizenship ceremony, was associated with the ‘conservative’ Al-Huda Institute of Canada in Mississauga. Tashfeen Malik, the female San Bernardino shooter, studied at a branch of Al-Huda in Pakistan. There’s a concerted effort on the part of some Muslims to get us ‘used to’ the way they like to do things, so that eventually, we’ll give in and allow them to establish sharia courts, then sharia law.
commented 2015-10-23 12:48:25 -0400
Lynda says; It is using the guise of prevention when in reality it is the ultimate form of blaming the victim.

This is a common theme of the left and anyone that wants to tell us all how to live. Hitler used to promote Freedom and Liberty in his election campaigns. (you’ll be liberated once free of the burden to make decisions). Oh yes, like Lefty’s of today, he “left out half the facts”. But they always have a hidden meaning and/or blame the victim hidden in their words. It’s what some refer to as speaking in code. Because Lefty’s think different, they all get it from the get go, where it takes the rest of us a time to understand. Well, not me, not anymore. I go looking for the hidden meaning in everything they say from the get go. Bottom line however is, like Putin, they can’t be trusted!

Ever notice that? That ALL Lefty’s use this hidden meaning tactic?
commented 2015-10-15 22:22:00 -0400
not really interested in which countries could be re enforcing our stand; we as Canadians do not cover our faces….we can find some article in the " supreme " law that forms the basis for what our stand should be I am sure , regardless of all the cultural , religious, social reasons given or found to support the veil !!! if that is what it takes …too complicated for nothing . I am of Tim’s opinion — absolutely !!!!!!! PLUS it should not be worn not only while taking the oath but should NOT be worn IN PUBLIC that is it , that is all ….wear it in your bathroom if u wish …any other place is is not the Canadian way …FIT IN OR GET OUT!!!!!
commented 2015-10-12 23:58:07 -0400
Is Brian Lilley really arguing that Canada should copy the example of Muslim countries? No thanks. He will be promoting beheadings next. In Canada let’s follow Canadian law. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on this matter twice. Live with it.
commented 2015-10-12 22:51:38 -0400
So they are allowed to enter Canada and use our court system to fight against our rule of law and WIN. I trust we all know what would happen to any of us if we went to a Muslim country and demanded that all women be unveiled. We would be beheaded. Those of you who believe the Niqab is ok for Canada are disrespecting all Canadians and the immigrants who built it. SHAME ON YOU. This is my country and we have rules. Go ahead where it wherever else in this great country just don’t come here and demand that it can be worn during a citizenship ceremony. I’m tired of us Canadians always apologizing for having an opinion. Enough is enough. And that is not racist. It’s called self preservation. FIT IN OR GET OUT!!!!!
commented 2015-10-12 15:17:52 -0400
A Niqab is a hood worn over the head that conceals the face except the eyes. It is not a religious requirement as the Koran merely states men and women should dress modestly, therefore it is not religious discrimination to be against them. Neither is it racist as women of any race may become Muslim. The modesty factor has been distorted by hardcore Islamists and now the reasoning for wearing Niqabs and Burgas is much more ominous. When females reach puberty they are deemed sexually available and attractive to men so they are either coerced or forced to conceal themselves from leering eyes , sexual advances and assaults. It is using the guise of prevention when in reality it is the ultimate form of blaming the victim. Those who see banning these garments as infringing on a women’s right to wear whatever she wants are wrongly confusing this as a fashion issue. There are times in everyone’s life when their attire will be dictated by others and a citizenship ceremony should be one of them. If I had shown up for my own swearing in ceremony wearing a bikini I am sure I would have been asked to change, and rightly so as I would have been disrespecting and devaluing the experience for others at the ceremony. Many also claim women that live their lives with their identities concealed from the world are doing so of their own free will. Would you, or any sane person choose to live this way without coercion? Would you be perfectly fine if your own daughter decided to join Islam and wanted to spend her life wearing a mobile prison? It defies logic and human nature. There is also the ridiculous notion that we are excluding and ostracizing women if we ban Niqabs, when in reality they are excluding and ostracizing themselves by hiding from the rest of society by wearing symbols of anti assimilation. Let’s look at it from the rights of the rest of us. Don’t we have the right to see who we are dealing with at our places of business, sitting next to us on the bus or at the doctors office? It boggles the mind that we would allow anyone dressed like this the right to operate a motor vehicle or enter a bank. I would wager a lot more of us are made uncomfortable and offended by these misogynist garments than there are those wearing them. Now for some historical fact. A few Muslim women have written articles recently claiming that up until the last few decades, Niqabs were not a common sight, even in the Middle East. Their popularity has risen since the rise of the Taliban, Al Quada, Isis and worldwide Islamic terrorism. They are the ultimate symbol of Sharia law. People in the free world (especially women) should realize what they are defending by insisting this is merely a women’s right to wear what she chooses. They are defending gender inequality, misogyny, oppression, degradation, and anti assimilation.
commented 2015-10-11 19:29:09 -0400
As a Canadian, I extend to all immigrants. Throw off the oppressive elements of your previous existence of living and embrace the freedom of the Canadian diaspora! Our courts are corrupted and will not support your freedom! Only you can help maintain this freedom! Call out the oppressive of your community that would seek to control you! The majority of Canadians are with you!
commented 2015-10-11 19:19:28 -0400
Thanks everyone for your input. I am still really curious as to how this will play out in the greater specter. Will it all drop here or will there be other further challenges? If so how will the court react seeing they are the ones so intent on making this a religious right issue?
commented 2015-10-11 17:45:36 -0400
Rick said, " I suspect a lawsuit, even a class action one would simply be dismissed by the Lieberal Judiciary. "

Yes, it would, but only after the judiciary ran the proceedings as long as possible to force higher legal costs as a subtle punishment for daring to bring legal action.
commented 2015-10-11 17:16:06 -0400
Edward Jobin said: “There is another element of this whole issue that leaves me wondering. I understand that people may invoke the Charter of rights and claim freedom of religion and all but I thought the charter of rights was for Canadian citizens. How does someone invoke the charter before they are even a citizen?” This is a point I made on another thread. The Lieberal Judiciary is making things up as they go along. Actual Laws do not factor into their decisions. It may also be construed as political activity to unseat a Gov’t during an election period! For those of us who are citizens, our rights have been violated in a huge way by granting non citizens precedence over customs and traditions inherent in Canadian Society! I suspect a lawsuit, even a class action one would simply be dismissed by the Lieberal Judiciary. More drastic actions will be required, and regrettably, I believe it will come to that eventually!
commented 2015-10-11 15:53:30 -0400
What is it that causes Tommy Muc-air and Justaint Tru-adeau, The Supreme Court of Canada and all the other Left Wing Nuts, to all kow tow down to The Religion of Peace, better known as the Political Dogma of Islam. Do they not see what is happening? These religious fanatics, fully intend to take over this Country and you will become one of them, or you will die. As long as we have idiots like Trudeau and Mulcair, promising to allow thousands more of these heathens, into the Country, in exchange for votes, we sink lower into the pit of no return. If, God help us, Mulcair wins the election, I can just see him offering to take Refugees from France, his alternative Country.

Do we, as Canadians , have the right to REMOVE our Grand Children’s future. Thin about it.
commented 2015-10-11 15:35:21 -0400
I find this a very common sense argument. It is time facts were looked at and not just those supporting a certain kind of idealism.
commented 2015-10-11 14:36:29 -0400
How does someone invoke the charter before they are even a citizen?

Very easy. The Supreme Court of Canada has declared that the Charter of Rights applies to all people who are physically present in Canada. None of the rights and freedoms in that charter are absolute. It is all up to the judges rather than parliament. Canadians are denied protection from kangaroo courts for making people feel bad, while foreign nationals can overrule Canadian laws, customs and values in what used to be our own country. the place called Canada.
commented 2015-10-11 04:59:11 -0400
The word was clever. Please judges leave cleavers at the door.
commented 2015-10-11 04:46:21 -0400
I sure hope our cleaver judges have a plan before someone decides to see if they can enter the country without removing their veil.
commented 2015-10-10 23:58:08 -0400
There is another element of this whole issue that leaves me wondering. I understand that people may invoke the Charter of rights and claim freedom of religion and all but I thought the charter of rights was for Canadian citizens. How does someone invoke the charter before they are even a citizen?
commented 2015-10-10 17:02:03 -0400
So the little bimbo is a member of the ICNA, people I get the feeling we’ve been had and according to other’s that Tarek spoke to they are now infiltrating the Liberal party which doesn’t surprise me in the least…
commented 2015-10-10 14:10:19 -0400
It would be interesting to know why these Muslim countries have banned Niqabs because the argument that a Muslim country becoming more democratic would somehow become more theocratic seems counter-intuitive.
commented 2015-10-10 13:28:23 -0400
Whatever happened to common sense? I believe it has been subjugated to foolish ideologies that DENY human nature. CHANGE for the sake of scratching SOME HARPER haters itches? Give me the greed of a capitalist who only wants my money over the overarching, all inclusive GREED of the SOCIALIST, THE COMMUNIST or whatever guise or ROCK they hide under INCLUDING Liberal, NDP, Labour, Fascist, GREEN, COMMUNIST, GAY, LESBIAN, QUEER, FEMENAZI, etc. WHO knows better than WE OURSELVES what we need? GIVE US FREEDOM or give us DEATH!! Those FAT, GREEDY PIGS who want to STEAL OUR FREEDOM with their LIES and so obtain their POWER and MONEY by whatever MEANS, then tell us what SALT MINE or GULAG we will live the rest of our lives in! To those PIGS, HANDS OFF our WONDERFUL, CANADIAN, DEMOCRACY. WE WILL FIGHT YOU to the END! MULCAIR and TRUDEAU, CANADA has had 148 wonderful years, that clearly despite your LACK of APPRECIATION is the BEST place to live in the WORLD TODAY! CANADIANS DO NOT be fooled by those LIARS who WILL not ask the GOD of the BIBLE to bless Canada with our SAFETY this October 19! CANADA, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
commented 2015-10-10 13:20:07 -0400
This just proves it, The Supreme Court of Canada is full of politically correct, progressive thinking, morons. In addition they are all cowards. Not politically appointed? Who appoints the people, who appoint ‘them’?
commented 2015-10-10 13:04:29 -0400
The opposition are blatantly to blame for making the niqab an “election issue” They blame Harper for it, but they’re the ones constantly bringing it up. I surely hope Canadians see how shallow the opposition leaders are…they’re literally like Laurel and Hardy. Now Justin is stealing from Harper’s playbook and promising “lower taxes”. He’ll give some with one hand and take more with the other. And Mulcair? Well…he’s just creepy and slithery.
commented 2015-10-10 03:13:14 -0400
Funny to watch the socialists “going unglued”.

Incongruence is a mild word for the two stalin parties. These two stalin leaders, both pig troodo and pig mulcair, are on a social suicide and economic suicide mission to destroy Canada and its borders.

The socialist pigs of the planet’s nearer term mission is to end all border and allow free movement of anyone, anywhere in the world. Communist pig Obama is all about this too, but he won’t get there, so immigration is instead free flowing in the US.

10 days to go – my guess is Harper gets a larger majority this time around.
commented 2015-10-09 22:42:36 -0400
Facts do not matter – this is Canada – land of liars and emotional outbursts presented as facts by the media
commented 2015-10-09 22:09:02 -0400
Awesome report Mr. Lilley. Facts like these are very refreshing indeed.
commented 2015-10-09 22:08:10 -0400
Canada is going down the toilet. The radicals infiltrate us and have taken away the culture we have enjoyed for centuries. Why is it that we have to accommodate the Muslim idea and not have Merry Christmas, the Lord’s Prayer, Christian symbols on and in our schools. It goes on and on, they come to our country Canada and are offended by traditions and ways that have existed for centuries and centuries and we have to remove these things, yet, things that they impose to replace the things we lost have just got to be accepted. There is something grossly wrong here.
commented 2015-10-09 21:02:28 -0400
I think David Menzies demonstration was indicative of this issue can be stretched into other settings despite assurances to the contrary and that no one seems to be able to know how to address it for fear of being labelled a racist and for fear of being sued. So rather than being sued and not wanting to be branded a racist they fold without a fight choosing rather to deflect the issue by smearing anyone who calls them out on it.
commented 2015-10-09 20:15:17 -0400
Show your face,, this is Canada
commented 2015-10-09 19:15:28 -0400
Brian the socialists will never condemn the Saudis, because the Saudis will just tell them to fuck off and mind their own business and that will be it. Here in our Canada we have jerks for judges that side with the socialists and are socialists themselves so they stick together.
Do you think that this would have come this far if ONE judge had the guts to stand up for the rights of women and respected the majority of Canadians that say no to the Niqab?