September 23, 2015

In Quebec, "the niqab issue has really hijacked the campaign"

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder
 

I spoke to journalist Eric Duhaime about what's going on in Quebec politics right now.

English Canadian reporters are abuzz about NDP leader Thomas Mulcair's comments about separation. Duhaime agrees with me that no one in Quebec is talking about that issue right now.

What Quebeckers are really concerned about is the niqab, and the court decision allowing Muslim women to cover their faces while taking the citizenship oath.

Duhaime says the NDP's popularity in the province has been dropping one percent a day and they're now below 40 percent, based on the perception that the party is pro-niqab.

Duhaime says even most Quebec Muslims oppose it.

He adds that there is also a "huge backlash" against proposals to accept large numbers of Syrian refugees.

"If there is a problem in Syria, we should help them in Syria," he says, is the common point of view among average people, even if the media don't agree.



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

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

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

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-09-29 15:26:56 -0400
Why didn’t you spell it out in the first place that you wanted a “concrete” example, TERRY RUDDEN. You remind me a bit of what our youngest used to sound like when she wanted her Old Man to come up with ideas for her essays so she could avoid some thought and research. So I’ll give you the same kind of answer I usually gave her:

Tell you what, you’re a smart fellow, put your thinking cap on and pretend you’re someone in the type of business where presenting and verifying ID is a necessary part of transactions. I’ll check back in a day or two – and if you’re still bereft of ideas, maybe I’ll give you a more “concrete” hint.

And don’t tell me the essay is due tomorrow morning, or I’ll give you another standard answer. ;)
commented 2015-09-29 13:09:03 -0400
Still waiting for a concrete example, Jamie.
commented 2015-09-28 09:05:04 -0400
“..any transaction undertaken under an assumed identify would, of course, be null and void. Can you give me an example that exemplifies your concern? "
Sure, TERRY RUDDEN. But first of all, how about null, void, and fraudulent…and to the detriment of a victim. So one example that exemplifies my concern would be any transaction where a person can take steps to avoid being the victim of a null, void and fraudulent transaction.
commented 2015-09-28 06:30:49 -0400
Jamie: such as? I ask because any transaction undertaken under an assumed identify would, of course, be null and void. Can you give me an example that exemplifies your concern?
commented 2015-09-27 17:20:07 -0400
“Jamie: I’m curious. What private sector interactions are you postulating here?”

TERRY RUDDEN: Any interaction where positive identification is necessary.
commented 2015-09-27 16:16:52 -0400
This is not about whether or not women should be wearing face coverings. It is about whose customs and values will endure in our land. Will it be our traditional values that stem from our European and Christian heritage or the primitive, foreign, Middle Eastern and intolerant values of our new immigrants who despise our culture and who refuse to assimilate.
commented 2015-09-27 14:32:42 -0400
Very possible, Alex. I love Quebec, but it’s always had a strong streak of xenophobia. I admire Mulcair’s integrity on this, but not necessarily his political acuity.
commented 2015-09-27 12:48:30 -0400
Terry,
I got a feeling this issue is going to be the end of the NDP. Mulcair may lose half his seats in Quebec over this. If he does not gain seats in the rest of Canada. He will be reduced to third party status.
commented 2015-09-27 11:46:50 -0400
“When you said “good luck with that” to someone who suggested to change the law. What do you mean? Are you saying it is too difficult to change the law?”
I’m saying I doubt very much that there is either political or popular will to pass such a law.l As I noted in a prior posting: while 85% of Canadians would agree that you should eat your salad with a salad fork rather than a dessert fork, roughly 0% of Canadians would favour a law to that effect.
commented 2015-09-27 11:44:24 -0400
“But for similar interactions involving the private sector, things obviously have to be different.”
Jamie: I’m curious. What private sector interactions are you postulating here?
commented 2015-09-27 11:03:12 -0400
Terry,
When you said “good luck with that” to someone who suggested to change the law. What do you mean? Are you saying it is too difficult to change the law?
commented 2015-09-27 08:55:36 -0400
I’ll repeat what I said previously…on more than one occasion. I don’t give a damn if a woman on her own free will wants to walk around in head-to-toe bag 24/7. But, the state and citizens have to have the right to say NO in certain circumstances. No face, no drivers licence; no face, no getting on my airplane; no face, no ballot; no face, no way I’m taking your cheque, etc., etc.

Now, if the state wants to concoct some elaborate screening process with separate “viewing rooms” staffed by unionized female viewers in every agency that dispenses government services where facial and ID confirmation is a requirement for the delivery of said services,(sorry for describing Liberal Heaven) then it can (and under Tinkerbell Trudeau or Chameleon Tom, probably will) do so. But for similar interactions involving the private sector, things obviously have to be different. I said obviously…HRCs ‘obviously’ excluded.

So it boils down to this: the right to say NO.
commented 2015-09-27 07:17:38 -0400
Glenn: within my lifetime, Catholic women were expected to wear hats to church. This was not Catholic dogma, although I suppose some enterprising defender of The Way Things Are could have dug up a scriptural reference. It was a cultural practice. But it was deeply felt to the point that young women who forgot to wear a hat were pointedly given a Kleenex to put on their head.
I’m pretty sure those young women weren’t afraid of being raped by the Knights of Columbus. I’m pretty sure that behaviour was viewed as an act of piety, or modesty, undertaken because of reverence, not fear.
That changed.
This will too.
And personally, if you have a photo ID, and if you’ve gone through the entire course of studies and screening required to achieve citizenship, and if you unveil to a court official privately before taking the oath, then frankly, I’m PERFECTLY satisfied you are who you say are. And I will NOT be going down to the courthouse to check, in any case.
commented 2015-09-26 22:41:59 -0400
The whole thing Terry Rudden takes on an even larger point of absurdity to me ….in that any state that pretends to be Christian in any degree….requires the swearing of oaths for ANY legal proceeding (once again I remind you I am Buddhist)….when the Christian Bible tells you not to swear oaths in language and terms that are unambiguous and clear……Matthew 5:33

As a Buddhist there is nothing more sacred in the precept of “right speech” than a vow. It is that which you vow that is reincarnated….not your ego….not your “soul”

Any legal procedure in Canada that contains the words “so help you God” has no validity because no power in Canada has subject matter jurisdiction to invoke the aid of God.

But since this ceremony of avowing faith and fidelity to Canada is legally required…..the religious belief that men are inherantly so rapacious that a woman cannot safely expose her face…..is just too absurd to be accommodated …..the rest of Canada would like to know who you are if you are seeking refuge in our sangha.
commented 2015-09-26 20:02:48 -0400
Why is a foreigner attempting to change the way we do things in Canada, and who is paying her legal fees?
commented 2015-09-26 17:12:13 -0400
" If this is the case, then why all the commotion concerning this woman and the Canadian Citizenship ceremony?"
Excellent question, Gail. I’ve been asking that repeatedly.
commented 2015-09-26 17:06:04 -0400
Terry Rudden – " Muslim women DO allow their photos to be taken for photo ID, DO unveil when identification is required by a peace officer, and DO unveil prior to taking the oath of citizenship." If this is the case, then why all the commotion concerning this woman and the Canadian Citizenship ceremony? I also have to ask – why don’t they show their face DURING the ceremony? There is no reason why they can’t – covering their face certainly has nothing to do with religion as many of them want us to believe.
commented 2015-09-26 16:43:43 -0400
Terry Rudden….my response to your question is the simple question….DID THEY OR DID THEY NOT PRAY FOR THE DEFEAT OF CANADIAN ARMED FORCES ON FRIDAY EVENING….if they did then their loyalties are conflicted. The armed forces and the insurgent forces of some of our enemies happen to be Moslem. But our forces protected Moslems from the wrath of their Christian neighbours in the Balkans and nobody seemed too upset about that. So from the perspective of Islam collectively……which nobody can actually pretend to speak for though many do…..IS CANADA AN ENEMY OF THE FORCES OF ISLAM OR IS IT NOT.

Depends who you ask.
commented 2015-09-26 15:31:35 -0400
Terry Rudden- When I say Muslims who want to destroy our democracy I mean the majority that want to do just that. The only Muslims that I will accept as moderate are the ones who speak out against the rest who want nothing but to harm civilizations that do not change to their way, this is happening all over the world. So, if an MP, MPP, professsor, lawyer, or who ever holds a title says nothing about Muslim extremists then I will put them in the category of terrorist who wants to destroy our life. There are so many Muslims that do not speak out, therefore, when you are silent you agree with what is going on. That is my opinion and believe, if I do not agree with what is going on in my country then I will speak up to anybody who will listen. Silence is acceptance.
commented 2015-09-26 15:22:22 -0400
I feel deceived ! Mr.Trudeau & Mr.Mulcair refuse to appeal the court decision on the Niqab to protect Canadians from “Masked Islamists” who use our laws against us.
This is not just an issue during the elections, but pertinent to the future of Canada.
commented 2015-09-26 15:17:31 -0400
MUSLIM WOMEN WHO ESCAPED SEVERE THEOCRACIES to freely feel the wind in their hair in Canada, are shocked by courts catering to masked Islamists. To them the court ruling must be similar to a Holocaust survivor living in Canada and finding an Auschwitz guard moving in next door wearing fascist a uniform. These “Sharia Masks” (niqabs) are not fashion statements but ""Faction Statements" and the
PROSELYTIZING OF OPPRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.
commented 2015-09-26 15:12:32 -0400
So Brian: in your view, those opinions are shared by all Muslims? Including Muslim Canadian senators, members of Parliament, conservatives, cops, university prof, mayors, scientists and so on? All of them?
commented 2015-09-26 12:24:19 -0400
Sometimes it’s not about the law and all about being respectful to the country that allowed you to come here, the word respect does not equate to a Muslim, they only perceive themselves as superior to all non-Muslims.
commented 2015-09-26 12:20:58 -0400
I will never understand why the left feels the need to destroy the very country that prides itself on democracy, they also fail to listen to the warnings from the Muslims which are,
1. Muslims will get Sharia Law implemented in all countries around the world at any cost,
2. Muslims will take over the planet and change all infidels to Islam or they will be slaughtered,
These are the words of the Muslims and not mind, when I perceive a threat I will react accordingly and I expect my government to do the same. This is not about multiculturalism nor religion, if it were about religion then the left are hypocrites as they say it’s OK for a woman to be suppressed and wear this symbol of oppression, but it is not OK for Christians to be seen in public or there symbols.
commented 2015-09-26 12:12:41 -0400
“I agree Keith Barnes, “The answer to all this is simple. Change the Law” "
Correct. Good luck with that.
commented 2015-09-26 12:00:34 -0400
Any concession to Islam is the thin edge of a very large wedge. No face coverings during citizenship ceremonies period.
commented 2015-09-26 10:31:27 -0400
I agree Keith Barnes, “The answer to all this is simple. Change the Law”
commented 2015-09-26 07:45:12 -0400
Keith:
“They are just telling us, we are here, we can do what we like with your laws, Shar’ia Law is the only law that we obey.”
Nonsense. THERE IS NO SUCH LAW. Muslim women DO allow their photos to be taken for photo ID, DO unveil when identification is required by a peace officer, and DO unveil prior to taking the oath of citizenship.
I understand you despise Muslims and want to expel them from Canada. That’s your problem. But stop pretending that this is “breaking the law”, because it’s not.
commented 2015-09-26 04:48:00 -0400
So, this muslim woman feels it’s more important to cover her face than observe Canadian customs and laws. So what’s the big deal?? The big deal is, muslims who wear the niqab, are going to have to realize our laws don’t always allow for the face being covered. You can’t get a passport OR Drivers License picture if your face is covered, nor can you cross the border into the U.S. without some type of identification in the form of a picture. And what about police traffic stops? Do they think the police are going to accept their drivers license without seeing their face as well? Are muslims going to challenge ALL the laws regarding face coverings? To me, this action is disrespectful, and it’s telling Canadians, “we don’t give a shit about your laws, we’re muslims, and we don’t answer to infidels, or their ways”.

So, what’s the big deal about covering your face to be sworn in as a citizen? Why did this woman come to Canada if it wasn’t to seek a better life with opportunities for herself? Canada offers immigrants a better life with free medical and a welfare support system. Somebody please tell this woman, “Canada DOESN’T NEED YOU, YOU NEED CANADA”. All I can say is, if you don’t like the life here in Canada, and can’t make a small sacrifice to become a Canadian citizen, then you don’t belong here. Please, I’ll happily show you to the door. Buh bye. Good luck finding a better place on the planet to live!!!
commented 2015-09-25 23:47:35 -0400
The answer to all this is simple. Change the Law, make a full face photograph a requirement for the Certificate of Citizenship. This whole Niquab issue, was of course a set up by the Muslims. They are just telling us, we are here, we can do what we like with your laws, Shar’ia Law is the only law that we obey.