September 19, 2015

Raheel Raza: Burqas "make a mockery of Islam" and "should be unconstitutional"

Ezra LevantRebel Commander

I spoke with liberal Muslim activist and author Raheel Raza about a Canadian court's shocking decision to allow women to wear face coverings while taking the Canadian citizenship oath.

Raza says the burqa and niqab should be made unconstitutional.

She also points out that "Islamophobia" is really "an industry" invented by Islamists to attack the West:

"The whole premise is based on a lie."

We also tease out the contradictions in the pro-burqa arguments:

How can these garments be "voluntary" yet "a religious requirement" at the same time?

Raza tells me that when she debates this topic, it is always with Muslim men.

"They can't even find a woman who will come and talk about this issue."


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

Who are Canada's radical Muslim leaders?
FIND OUT and fight back at

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

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-09-23 11:59:57 -0400
Knowing someone like this lady exists, and is active and vocal here in our great nation Canada, makes me feel hopeful, and not so alone in this huge battle to maintain our values as a people, in this oppressive political move and agenda. Thank you Raheel Raza for the valiant voice you are giving to those who are the majority here in Canada.
commented 2015-09-22 06:40:22 -0400
Brinkman, Does your buddy Omar pray for the defeat of Canadian troops every Friday evening? I think as well as banning the face covering I think a special clause should be added to the cotizenship oath specifying that you will not make praying for the defeat of Canadian Armed Forces part of you fifth set of prayers every friday.
commented 2015-09-21 23:14:18 -0400
Hyacinth my friend no need for apologies but I do appreciate the intent. I also agree with what you are saying. If allowed to stand that is the logical conclusion. If Muslims are allowed to wear facial coverings at a citizenship ceremony why would not everyone else because to not allow everyone else would be discriminatory. So this issue needs to be fought not only because of Muslims but because it has the potential to be stretched and abused even further. There is often unintended results which no one foresees when they attempt to change the law. When the law was passed allowing same sex marriage in Canada we were assured that religious people would be protected because of their conscientious objection and yet that is not how it worked in reality.
commented 2015-09-21 23:01:57 -0400
Lisa the point I am trying to get at it is although you and I may agree the Niqab and Burha are in our opinion degrading it would be impossible to prove that for every individual who wore them that was the case. As I have suggested there can be many motivations for which a person may indulge in certain religious activities. Some people practise certain religious activities because of fear of God’s punishment, some would carry a statue in their car to help the remember and I would suggest some use them as if they were good luck harms to keep them from harm, others yet perform some activities to show off and some in all this mix have sincere motivation. This one person aside we have no way of knowing the intents of a person heart in each individual case whether we are suspicious of their motives or not. There is no to prove in each case which is why it would be impossible to try and ban someone from dressing like this walking down your street. But to try and do so would only open the spectrum up of anyone whose face was covered or it would be discriminatory against Muslims only as if only Muslims whose faces are covered are dangerous. We know that isn’t true as I have mentioned people have worn masks to rob banks and commit other criminal acts and yet there has been no push to ban wearing masks.
commented 2015-09-21 20:41:04 -0400
This interview is full of logical rationale. And that alone cleaqrly demonstrates the total stupidity of those who pretend to be judges in the Canadian halls of justice. These incompetent losers are working hard to pass our country into the hands of those whose cultural activists who are falsely presenting a political cultural requirements of other nations as being religious. When are our jurists going to smarten up and stop acting like activists from Muslim countries?
commented 2015-09-21 13:34:23 -0400
Edward, maybe you misread, I said, “Also you say you agree that the Burka and Niqab are undesirable” You are absolutely right , Burqas and Niqabs are sexist and degrading, and if made illegal on the streets in Canada, it would go a long way to stopping that.

Your examples just don’t hold any water for me at all. Sorry. It would take too long to say why for each of them so I won’t.

I am suspicious of absolutely ANYONE who is covering their face on the street or in businesses in Canada. I agree with Raza on this. It should be unconstitutional. I don’t think your examples of why it can’t be done, hold any water.

This isn’t a religious issue. Its a Canadian issue. Do these women or their husbands who may be forcing them, want to be Canadian and respect the traditions of their host country or not?
We can agree to disagree.
commented 2015-09-21 12:51:48 -0400
Edward, my apologies if I misunderstood, however that is indeed how it reads/comes across (perhaps it is how it is written down).
There are certain “trains of thought” (for lack of better wording) that when verbalized or written shut off debate period (references to Nazi/bigotry/whatever-phobia, etc.). All one has to do is read blogs of various sites to see that actuality. The art of writing is rapidly being replaced with sound bytes and poor grammar so it is easy to misconstrue the original intent of the writer/blogger.
I have found it is better to leave very derogatory comments alone, if pursued then it usually ends up in a heated exchange (which usually loses its original intent) which in my opinion is not debating and not worth the effort. Perhaps it would have been better that you would have left that comment about rats alone and not made inference to the Nazis.
Either way your point is taken, however, I think you must concede that the original argumentation (that was it political not a religious right) is the topic to get back to.
I still stand firm on the premise that what she is doing (suing) is a political stunt to pave the way for sharia law to become acceptable throughout the country. She is, as someone already pointed out, a hypocrite because she did not dutifully wear the burka/niqab in her native country but rather donned it here in Canada to use as a political weapon. The laws which are enacted are for every Canadian, not select religious groups or individuals to be excluded from the law, one law for everyone period. If she is allowed to cover her face whenever wherever then that should apply to every last person in Canada. We should then all be allowed to cover our faces (be it with a niqab or a Halloween mask) when it comes to getting IDs, voting, driving, banking, you name it. Stop the double standard, stop the preferential treatment because of a “religion”. They had no problem banning Christianity in many facets of public interest, isn’t it time to hold Islam to the same standard?.
commented 2015-09-21 12:22:42 -0400
I would also mention Muslim women have been wearing these coverings in public in Canada now for many years and I think society in general would agree they have not been shown to harm the public other than say a recent robbery where someone dressed in a Niqab committed a robbery but then robberies have also been committed with people wearing a variety of disguises. I think some people might be confused that because I am arguing the legal issues that some how I am in favor of them. I’m not. I simply see this as having no chance of winning and in fact this isn’t even being raised as a legal issue. The issue at hand is in a citizenship ceremony and considering the left leaning judiciary I have my doubts as to this even passing.
commented 2015-09-21 12:13:18 -0400
Liza Rosie I am not in favor of women wearing Niqabs or Burkhas anywhere however my preference and belief that it is degrading and sexist is simply my opinion. Some women very well be forced to wear them by their husbands but we don’t know that all do. If a woman claims she is wearing it by her own choice, even if you don’t believe her how could you possibly prove it? . So the fact I don’t care for it or believe in it has no power over their own choice. The points I am have made are simply legal in nature and no I am not a lawyer but have tried to show demonstrating with the women’s topless issue that regardless how you feel about the issues the courts will make decisions which cannot be seen to be discriminatory. In other words just because someone feels uncomfortable seeing a person in a face covering in public cannot be applied to only one group of people without them claiming they are being discriminated against and I would suggest if that if only they were singled out they would have a legal point. There is a difference from a person legally protesting and someone simply walking down the street, living out their life. And there is plenty examples of where people wear facial coverings in public if you took a few minutes to think it through. Kids playing sports wearing football helmets, goalie masks, clowns, people with head injuries requiring head bandages, actors in plays wearing disguises, people dressing up like Captain Jack Sparrow or any costumes at premier movie events., the people who dress up going to comicon, furries, the mascots at theme parks, the band Kiss or any other band that dresses up or their legions of followers who go to concerts dressed like their icons. The law would ask you if you felt threatened by any of these groups whose faces were covered up or is it simply Muslims you are afraid of?
commented 2015-09-21 11:49:15 -0400
Hyacinth when I protest people making comments about Muslims breeding like rats and comparing it to how the nazi’s spoke about Jews has nothing to do with supporting the wearing of Burhas. For one I don’t see any comments I have made that support them but rather I am acknowledging under our legal system it is their right in public places to wear them under the current status of the law and I have tried to keep my discussion centered on those issues. When people start to make comments like “Muslims breeding like rats” it has no bearing on the conversation, it is a distraction and I would suggest demonstrates a level of bigotry that does not need to be introduced to this conversation.
commented 2015-09-21 10:46:37 -0400
Islamists and thieves are the only people I can think of who insist on covering their faces in public, oh and kids going to Halloween parties. So yes, of course the law wouldn’t only apply to Muslims. Most people going about their business don’t cover or conceal their face in public or feel the need to, so not a problem. Make it the law across the board.

People driving to Halloween parties usually wait until they get there to put on their mask. I think it is illegal to drive wearing anything that obstructs vision anyway. I doubt any law would include kids walking with their parents to go trick or treating. Sorry, seems a lame comment.

There already exists bill c-309, which makes it a crime to conceal identity during protests even peaceful ones. They need to amend that existing law, in my opinion, to include everyone in all circumstance. I agree with Raza, it should be unconstitutional to wear the Niqab or Burka on the streets of Canada, and should include anyone concealing their face in public, under any circumstance. It should be unconstitutional.

Please give some examples, aside from Halloween parties, where a law prohibiting face coverings, would become a problem for any Canadian in Canada to adhere to. Edward are you a Lawyer? Also you say you agree that the Burka and Niqab are undesirable attire for Canadian streets, yet it does sound as Hyacinth suggests, that you defend it or the women for insisting on wearing them.
Make it law they can’t, then their husbands can’t force them.
commented 2015-09-21 10:32:19 -0400
Awesome report Ezra. Perhaps what we should do is require ALL Muslim women in Canada to wear burka’s and niqabs when out in public and then when the Muslim women opposed to the mandatory wearing of the burka/niqab protest, we can put it to a vote – for them – Mulsim women only. Let them decide – the players in the game – and not their misogynistic husbands – “Yes” or “No” and the side with the majority wins and that becomes law in Canada.
commented 2015-09-21 10:15:23 -0400
“Syria has had a civil war for almost 5 YEARS. Why all the “refugees” NOW and why so all of a SUDDEN and why in such


With an Honors degree in History and a lifelong student of the subject, I smell a rat.

This is a highly organized, well oiled, mobilized invasion of Muslims and Jihadists into the Western World. It’s been in their plan for a long time. Momar Gadhafi predicted and explicitly stated that Muslim domination of Europe would happen without a conventional war and he said it 30 years ago. 90% of these economic “refugees” many who are well dressed and have cellphones are men between the fighting ages of 20 and 40. Very few women and children from everything I’ve seen.

Odd that he 5 wealthiest Arab States including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emerites and Kuwait are taking “no refugees” thanks and feel quite self righteous about it. The Saudis have over 100,000 air conditioned tents that are capable of housing 3 million people that they use for Mecca every year. No guilt what so ever? They are even laughing at us for taking in these hordes.

Ask yourself, why would Germany, Belgium, Holland, France, Sweden and others want to destroy their own cultures from within? It doesn’t make any sense? If this keeps up Europe will be burning daily within a very short few years if not months. Civil war in the streets between civilizations. Muslims vs Kefirs, that is to say, everyone who is not a Muslim.

Unfortunately, the reality is that Muslims are just not like any other immigrants. They don’t want to assimilate, they want to set up separate enclaves and implement Sharia Law. Another problem is that while the civilized West rightly abhors violence, conversely Muslims daily display their love of violence. They live it and embrace it. In many Muslim countries public beheadings and stoning to death for adultery for example. It’s a part of their culture precisely because Islam is, dare I say it, a death cult.

Islam is a supremacist, totalitarian, bigoted, fascist, racist political ideology masquerading as a religion. It literally means “submission”. The Quran MANDATES death for blasphamy, for adultery, for apostasy, for family honor, for being gay, Jewish or a Kafer as well as ten other “crimes” many not even considered to be so in the West. Death for drinking alcohol or taking illegal drugs for example.

Why let in vast numbers of these brainwashed people especially men of that age when past experience has already demonstrated the tragedy, not to mention the financial, social, and political costs of rampant multiculturalism in Europe. Ordinary citizens are against this immigration but strangely, their governments are not?

Someone or some organization is pulling some strings here is what I see. Is this invasion part of the New World Order’s plan to depopulate the planet? Maybe there’s not even any such an organization but it’s all over U-tube and other social media.

The major media are implicit in selling gullible citizens of the West the righteousness of the “refugees” cause and openly siding against Western culture. One drowned child’s picture in the right places sparks world wide outrage and sympathy for the movement and resettlement of vast numbers of Muslims.

However the implementation of Sharia Law, No Go Zone Muslim ghettos in most countries in Europe and Muslim rape gangs go unreported. In radical Islamist countries honor killings, beheadings, stoning’s, cutting off limbs, whipping and torture, pedophilia, child bride marriages, rape and misogyny go unreported DAILY and are dismissed as culturally ingrained.

Where is the indignity and the outrage over people doing this every day to their own populations? Yet a staged picture a drowned baby on a beach sparks a world outcry?

Muslim birthrates are 8 children per family while Europeans average 1.4. When these current millions bring in their multiple wives, children and extended families 85% of whom live on state benefits (England’s experience) you can multiply their number by at least 10x, maybe 20x or even more.

By 2050 Europe will be Muslim dominated just by demographics alone. When their numbers are sufficient they will legally vote in their own kind and then Sharia Law.

Europe as we know it will be lost forever. Two thousand years of civilization will be destroyed by the same fanatical bearded, bigoted, brutal, boneheaded, belligerent bastards who are now slaughtering their own kind and blowing up ancient and irreplaceable world heritage buildings, monuments, books, manuscripts and other historically significant art treasures in Iraq, Syria, Libya and other conquered territories.

Canada should not get sucked into this quagmire of political correctness just to show how polite, civilized. politically correct and Canadian we are. We should learn a lesson from our Australian counterparts".

Author unknown.
commented 2015-09-21 06:59:31 -0400
“That is why I used the examples of Halloween because that is exactly what lawyers would argue in a court when they asked so it only a Muslim who can;t hide their face or is it everybody? You do realize the law is supposed to apply to all and treat everyone equally do you not or does this apply only to Muslims?”
Edward, there lies the crux of the matter, the Muslims have and are constantly demanding they be treated differently than that of the rest of Canadians. The law is to apply to everyone equally but they want preferential treatment: No one has an issue not wearing a hat or scarf/veil or sunglasses for that matter in certain circumstances except Muslims. Photo ID for Drivers Licenses now requires that you cannot wear clear glasses (even if you are blind as a bat without them) because they “obscure” your face. How is it that Muslims have no qualms about that but during taking an oath ceremony is beyond the pale to them? To put it plainly they are trying to rewrite Canadian laws to suit them, this is the forerunner to having Sharia Law instilled into the fabric of a country (see England, France, Germany, etc.).
I am offended that the various levels of gov. is continually catering to them. In public schools we saw the banning of the Lord’s Prayer, but Muslims have “special” prayer rooms, the allowance of segregation of males and females in tax funded situations (classes, i.e.: swimming, sports, cafeterias, etc.: ) we have to remove hats/scarves in classes but they can keep theirs on – these are but a few examples that jump out glaringly for “special treatment”. No more catering, the law should apply equally to everyone no exceptions!!

“They made these same kind of comments about the Jews in Nazi Germany and I think we don’t want to go down that road do we?” When you make a comment like that you lose credibility in your argument. You are doing exactly what the left do to shut down debate, in essence that if you argue/debate using terminology that could be deemed offensive then you are a “hater” hence the debate is over.

I’m sorry to be so blunt but Edward you are trying to defend the indefensible, hence it makes it sound like you are pro-burka even if you are not.

It would be prudent to reread this:
commented 2015-09-21 02:11:59 -0400
Prince Knight I agree it is not about religion to us. It is about a reasonable request to know who is entering your country and being able to identify them to appropriate authorities and being able to ascertain in citizenship oath swearing that a person actually did make an honest legally binding commitment. I am addressing also some of the comments made by some by people who don’t want them to dress like that in public places. It would simply be impossible to legislate something like that. I will explain it as simply as possible. We all remember a number of years ago when a group of women protested the fact they were not allowed to go topless in public. Whether you agree with the decision or not the law said a women’s breasts are not sexual objects so it is discriminatory to allow men to go topless and not women. These same principles would come into play if someone as some suggest here tried to not allow Muslims to wear their religious dress in general public places (excluding things like banks to avoid fraud etc). People simply cannot say only Muslims cannot hide their face because it is discriminatory. So you would be left with all or nothing to which I can assure you a ban on all wearing of costumes or masks would never happen. Laws aren’t simply passed because someone wants them, there has to be a reasonable argument that is applied fairly.
commented 2015-09-20 23:11:49 -0400
I think some of you are missing the point entirely. I do believe there are places in which a person should be required to reveal their identity and in fact in a manner that we can see them physically swearing the oath, Other places would be places such as getting photo i.d., entering a country etc. But when people start saying they shouldn’t be able to walk down the street with their face covered you have no chance of winning such a case for the reasons I cited. Wearing a Niqab or Burtkha is no more commissioning a crime than someone wearing any other costume, If you were to insist on them to not be able twear them in public the law would say this has to apply to all people equally, And I have mentioned in other posts here on the same issue that if a person were to walk into a bank wearing a disguise they would not be granted an account without revealing themselves. This has been my position all along but there is no way you could expect the law to tell women that they cannot cover themselves in public because they might be in commission of a crime, The same could be said of anyone wearing a face covering costume, So why should the law single them out? That is why I used the examples of Halloween because that is exactly what lawyers would argue in a court when they asked so it only a Muslim who can;t hide their face or is it everybody? You do realize the law is supposed to apply to all and treat everyone equally do you not or does this apply only to Muslims? This has nothing to do with the fact I personally don’t agree with them and do see them as a form of discrimination of both women and men. The women who have been told to wear them and the men who are treated as though we cannot be trusted because of seeing them might cause mischief and yet women are allowed to view them. I am approaching this issue from legal viewpoints and it doesn’t help matters when people make comments about them “breeding like rats”. One of the toughest things for me to swallow is how our law does attempt and at times go overboard in it’s attempts to treat people fairly knowing full well we wouldn’t be afforded the same luxury in many of those countries. People keep reverting back to this one woman but I am suggesting this issue is more than this one woman whose motives may very well be disingenuous. You simply do not know that about all of them. And yes it is sad if someone is playing the courts but this is an issue that needed to be addressed as it would have eventually come up again anyhow. As far as the person saying they are breeding like rats. They made these same kind of comments about the Jews in Nazi Germany and I think we don’t want to go down that road do we? Let us be firm in our resolve because even if they don’t respect our rights in their countries we have better principles and better laws which should not be based on reaction to their bad laws but rather pro-action.
commented 2015-09-20 20:32:32 -0400
The whole point, Edward Jobin, has nothing to do with religion, or radicals/moderates, or even culture. All your arguments don’t mean anything, because you’re arguing the wrong thing.

The entire argument is about immigrants adhering to Canadian law and tradition if they want to become Canadian citizens. Nothing more, nothing less. It already is illegal to conceal your identity while in the commission of a crime, and it’s highly suspicious for a person to conceal his/her identity at all.

You haven’t grasped the point of the lawsuit this woman has launched — it’s purely political. She’s a NON-CANADIAN trying to tell Canada how we can accept her by her “religion”, when she didn’t even practice what she’s claiming back in her home country, Pakistan. She’s a hypocrite, she’s an agitator, she’s a political and legal nightmare. She should be denied citizenship, and deported as an undesireable because of her political maneuverings. That is the point. And the weak-willed legal system is catering to her, a non-Canadian. (They should have their heads examined, if not removed first for closer inspection.) The rules should be: If you want to become a Canadian citizen, adhere to our rules and traditions. She is not; she’s trying to change them from the outside. THIS IS WRONG.
commented 2015-09-20 20:25:01 -0400
Okay, fair is fair. Time to launch some human rights complaints. Why can’t I do this on a consistent basis? Pastafarians wear collanders on their heads as part of their “religion”, so I will start wearing a balaclava year ‘round as a part of my “beliefs”. And then when the cops tell me to uncover my face, I’ll launch a Human Rights case.
Why don’t we all try this and show the “legal” system what we really think of it?
commented 2015-09-20 18:09:26 -0400
“Do you really want to go down in history as the Grinch who stole Halloween? You wouldn’t be able to drive to a costume ball, clowns or any street performer?”
I think you’ve taken the matter out of context. There is a world of difference between a burka/niqab and say someone wearing a clown outfit (white paint, red ball on the nose, frizzy hair).
If you went into a bank say with a ski mask covering your entire face security would be watching your every move if not actively confronting you, yet no such caution with a person in a burka (think about the double standard for airport security: or the double standard at colleges:
A burka does hide identity. Couple of examples.

Comparing the burka/niqab to clowns and street performers is ludicrous on several levels. One subjugates half of the population (females) the others do not.
commented 2015-09-20 17:48:25 -0400
Ask yourselves why Muslim women refuse to talk about it. I’ll give you a hint… they wouldn’t be allowed. In Islam, a wife and children of a Muslim man are chattels, to do with as the man pleases. They are his “belongings,” not his family. Whatever the man says, the wife and children have to obey. If he says that his wife must wear a face covering or must dress in a head-to-toe black shroud, that’s what the wife does, because to disobey her husband is unIslamic and could have a nasty result. While some men may actually love their wives and children and deal with them respectfully, there are others who use and abuse their women and children to the Nth degree!
Ever wonder what unsightly bruising or swelling may be under those burkas? I know I do.
commented 2015-09-20 17:14:25 -0400
As to the point of " we don’t want people walking around our streets concealing their identity" I don’t think you would have any legal grounds for that because it is the implication that only Muslims who conceal their identities commit crimes and in fairness if you banned them from concealing their identity the law would require that everyone not be allowed to conceal their identity. If you think that through it has widespread implications. Do you really want to go down in history as the Grinch who stole Halloween? You wouldn’t be able to drive to a costume ball, clowns or any street performer? Again please not II am not trying to defend the practice, but simply in a legal system that’s goal is to be fair for all it would never fly without equal application to all.
commented 2015-09-20 16:55:59 -0400
“If you love our country and accept our laws then we have the right (to)witness it.” I think you hit the nail on the head Edward for that is exactly what she doesn’t. She doesn’t love Canada. She disrespects our laws. She cares nothing about Canada (our values and traditions) or she would not be suing.

Muslims and sympathizers use the terminology “islamophobia” to shut down debate: if we Canadians state that the burka/niqab is offensive then according to them and their sympathizers we are not stating a fact but rather we are islamophobic. In my opinion its time that we, as a collective, come up with new terminology to counter their terminology. IF things continue on this path I feel sorry for the younger generations, their future looks bleak.
commented 2015-09-20 16:11:21 -0400
Not really sure if some people were getting my point. Simply it is conceivable some who wear this garment are doing so with good conscience and it is just as conceivable that some aren’t. As it is impossible for us to know the true motives of each individual and considering there is an abundance of Muslim who openly profess their preference for Shariya law over the laws of the countries they are living in (some even openly breaking the laws by getting divorces and other matters settled outside of their countries legal courts). I do think it is important that we see who is swearing an oath and that they are in fact swearing it. If you love our country and accept our laws then we have the right witness it.
commented 2015-09-20 15:16:46 -0400
Hyacinth said, “Personally I think any Canadian lawyer suing the Canadian Gov. on the behalf of a non-Canadian should be immediately disbarred.”

Of course they won’t be, but if you are educated in a Christian Law University, you must be immediately disallowed to practice law. (sarcasm, of course)
commented 2015-09-20 15:03:40 -0400
@ Ron
“unless he is one of the elite, upper echelon communists, he will be dispensed with (meet " his own destruction") once his usefulness is no longer needed.” That had not occurred to me, you are right Ron. Brinkmann is a propagandist (wonder who is paying him).

@ Edward
There is a world of difference between a rosary and that distasteful article of clothing called a burka (niqab). I do not think any tolerance can be afforded nor excuses allowed when it comes to that article of clothing in Canada. I agree with Liza on her point – “no matter how you want to explain their rational for the wearing of the ‘Burqa’ or ‘Niqab’, on Canadian streets we don’t walk around concealing our identity.”
I also agree with Prince Knight, this female is using this offensive article of clothing not because she is an adherent of the belief that is in the Quran (wore it in Pakistan faithfully), but rather she is using it as a political tool. Personally I think any Canadian lawyer suing the Canadian Gov. on the behalf of a non-Canadian should be immediately disbarred.
commented 2015-09-20 14:32:17 -0400
The trouble that will certainly come is, eventually the Islamic males will show up wearing masks and if not allowed they will claim discrimination because women are allowed to hide their faces.
The whole country has gone mad, and, I hate to say it, but sooner or later non- Muslims will retailiate and we’ll see a " blood bath" on our streets.
commented 2015-09-20 12:37:33 -0400
We get your point, Edward Jobin, and the rest of us are trying to find out just what a “moderate Muslim” is. What you’re not receiving is that this whole court process is a sham. The woman suing Canada (who’s not even a Canadian citizen!) for the “right” to wear this concealing garb during the Citizenship Oath-taking ceremony has admitted she never wore this garment in her native Pakistan. The point you’re missing is that this is NOT religiously-motivated. The religion label is an emotional smokescreen. This is politically driven, pure and simple.

Yes, we should be tolerant of other religions, no question. But for this woman to be lying about her motives here? (Why didn’t she wear a burkha/niqab/whatever in Pakistan, if it’s a religious requirement?)

Again, this is not freedom of religion. This is political interference under the guise of Islamic "tradition. She’s not even a Canadian citizen! What right does she have to dictate how we should conduct our ceremonies? (Try, “none”…) The courts ruled against 3 other landed immigrants that didn’t want to swear allegiance to the Queen. Why did they rule in favor of this woman?

Further, if the tables were turned, and you tried to immigrate to Pakistan (don’t ask my why you would — this is a “what if”), you wouldn’t be allowed. Why? You’re not Muslim.

Why isn’t turnabout fair play, here?
commented 2015-09-20 12:08:36 -0400
@liza Rosie I think you have read my many arguably too many posts on this topic you would know I am in no way in favour of Niqabs or Burkhas. The point I was trying to make is just as in many different religions people wear religious apparel or carry artifacts such as rosaries, scapulars, ceremonial daggers etc. Although we may agree or disagree with such practises I think we would all agree that although there may be many motivations for the wearing and carrying of such articles that some percentage of the population participating in those practices believe they are doing so with a sincere purpose and possibly some insincere and some out of fear. I would suggest the same is true with some Muslims and in that light I didn’t think calling her a bitch was nice. I do think there are allot of people in this forum that have some good and interesting contributions which might be much better received without the slurs. Hey I get a bit annoyed and angry sometimes to so I wasn’t making a big deal out of it but it is important to realize the left would like nothing better than to point to some of the more heated comments to portrays us all as bigots and haters. I do think we also need to try to be fair to people whether or not they reciprocate.
commented 2015-09-20 11:40:13 -0400
Does The Rebel media “make a mockery of Islam”
For today only : Featured editorial cartoons of Ezra Levent – Exclusive archival news footage relating to Omar Khadr The Man , The Law, Syrians in Crisis since 2011, Idle No More, Murdered And Missing Aboriginals, Residential Schools, Truth and Reconciliation, Taxi Drivers versus UBER and my exclusive interviews with right wing protesters from last Sunday’s Albertans Against NDP on the steps of the Alberta Legislature…

Enjoy Your Freedoms! / I am not Charlie Hebdo
Only at
commented 2015-09-20 09:46:17 -0400
I don’t know if any Muslim women who wear bee keeper suits work, but I would not do business of any kind with anyone concealing their identity. Take me to jail, because I wouldn’t pay the HRC fine.