March 13, 2015

How Canadians really feel: The niqab debate, by the numbers

Rebel Staff
 

The niqab debate is raging in Ottawa.

Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair say the Conservative government is simply fear-mongering.  Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the “overwhelming majority” of Canadians, including moderate Muslims, support the Conservative government’s opposition to face veils at citizenship ceremonies.  Some new polls suggest he might be right.

Forum Research



The Forum Research poll was conducted exclusively for CityNews of Toronto voters, and showed that Torontonians broadly support a ban on face veils at citizenship ceremonies.  57% oppose allowing women to wear the niqab during citizenship ceremonies, compared to 27% in favour.  Among those who identify as ‘Muslim and Middle Eastern,’ 48% oppose allowing the niqab at the ceremony, whereas 38% support.  Admittedly, the sample size for this demographic was only 11 respondents, meaning the result has a high margin of error.



Stephen Harper also called the niqab “anti-woman” in the House of Commons on Tuesday.  His comments gave rise to the derisive hashtag #DressCodePM on twitter.  But what do Canadians think?

This same poll found that a plurality of Torontonians agree the niqab is a symbol of oppression.  46% agree it oppresses women, whereas 25% disagree.  Among those who identify as ‘Muslim and Middle Eastern,’ 25% agree it oppresses women, and 26% disagree.  

Source: Forum Research, conducted exclusively for CityNews, March 12, 2015


EKOS



This EKOS poll, which was published on iPOLITICS, further suggests how Canadians feel about niqabs being worn at citizenship ceremonies.  Its results are consistent with Forum Research in that 64% responded that niqabs should not be allowed at citizenship ceremonies.  



As you can see, regardless of one’s age, level of education, birthplace, or party affiliation, a majority of respondents in every category, including individuals that identify as liberal or NDP, oppose wearing the niqab at citizenship ceremonies.  Some commentators have suggested that the Conservative's policy could alienate new Canadians, but the data seems to suggest broad support for this measure.

Source: EKOS, published on iPOLITICS, March 12, 2015


CBC News




Even results from the CBC’s Power and Politics’ completely unscientific ballot box question found that overwhelmingly, a whopping 73% of Canadians believe the niqab is an insult to the dignity of women.  These numbers could be considered shocking given the ideological leanings of the viewers of this CBC program.

Source: CBC News, March 12, 2015

It appears clear how Canadians feel about the niqab.  But does it matter?  Justin Trudeau’s chief advisor, Gerald Butts, tweeted earlier today: “This is Canada, people.  We don’t decide whose rights we protect by public opinion polls. Do we? #cdnpoli”

Well at least he recognizes where Canadians overwhelmingly stand on this issue.

What do you think?

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

GET INVOLVED in our 100% grassroots crowdfunding campaign and help us bring you fresh content every day.

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

READ The Enemy Within: Terror, Lies and the Whitewashing of Omar Khadr -- Ezra Levant's timely book about domestic terrorism.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-03-17 01:39:12 -0400
Nancy, I see your point about the aggression of Muslim women in the department stores, and there is no acceptable excuse for it, but I find those you call “nasty women” are just reflecting on strangers the anger they feel from being treated like dirt at home….as we know, abuse begets abuse. They are simply abusers, begotten by abuse. It is the same when an abused wife beats her children, etc. and the child beats up other children. It is not a justification for it all, only an explanation. I think that is why Islam is so violent…as each generation is abused terribly and turns on the next and on others.

As Winston Churchill said in approx. 1899:
“A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men….Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world… and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science… the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” …..

115 years later where is Europe?

They didn’t listen there either and now Europe has all but fallen as well…but the opposition attacks Harper’s claim that Islamic culture is anti-woman…and demands he back up his comments…what a joke! Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it….now Europe and North Africa are gone and we are next, but we can’t even admit that their culture is anti-woman…we are supposed to say it is not so! I can’t stand the hypocrisy.

Even though our culture is far from perfect regarding women they expect Harper to apologize for speaking the truth! We are becoming a nation of imbeciles! Islam is anti-woman. Their culture is anti-woman. Their men are anti-woman. I don’t care if they make them breakfast in bed, the rest of the life is humiliation. If they smile at you, put you in handcuffs and muzzle you and sing you a song, does that make them your friend? If they kill you for adultery because they raped you are they your friends? Lock you in the house…great. Keep you from driving. So kind. Let you spend a little money. Whoopee! What is pro-woman about Islamic culture pray tell? If someone doesn’t beat you, you are being treated well? If they let you eat is that nice? They don’t kill you then they are treating you like gentlemen? Please tell me Justin and Mulcair or someone if that ilk…what is pro-woman about Islam!
commented 2015-03-16 16:46:53 -0400
Liberals are just like Democrats. They think we have short memories. Trudeua goes from claiming the right to wear the hijab is supported by Canadians, and now is saying that public opinion is not the issue.
commented 2015-03-16 16:31:50 -0400
My husband left us a year ago when we had our last kid because he has always been afraid of having kids (so embarrassing). I was in a dark world, things did not go as we have planned when we exchanging our marriage vows, he hates kids and never plays with them even on their birthdays; he always wants to have me alone for reasons best known to him. I tried teaching him ways to love kids but he constantly keeps his distance away from them which made them to think that he is not their father.
He finally left us to an unknown destination when he couldn’t bear with the pressure around him. I suffered and convinced them that their father will change to a better man and come back. This made me stand by my word because I don’t want to be a lying Mother, so I had to find ways to bring back my Boo as a changed man until I overheard a woman in a mall talking to her friend about a Spell Doctor called Dr.Osaz who help her sister get back her husband; so I quickly asked her if she can help me with the doctor’s contact if he can help me.Thanks to her and Dr. Osaz who changed my husband and brought him back to us as I promised our kids. He now loves them and plays with them. Dr. Osaz him a lovely Father and Husband. I am so happy that I finally fulfilled the promise I made to my kids. Contact Doctor Osaz if you are suffered relationship humiliation via: spirituallove @ hotmail . com
commented 2015-03-16 15:19:47 -0400
Both Trudeau and Mulcair are in bed with the Islamics, they have promised unlimited immigration from Islamic countries in exchange for the Canadian Muslim Vote. Sell Canada down the river just for political gain? Typical Left Wing Dings.

Or could it be that the female in question is just one ugly sob.
commented 2015-03-14 18:53:16 -0400
Why are you taking a poll about people’s uninformed opinions? Why not just consult the Qur’an?

HERE ARE THE FACTS ABOUT WOMEN COVERING UP IN ISLAM, ACCORDING TO THE QUR’AN, AHADITHS, AND SHARIA LAW ITSELF:

Here’s everything you never really wanted to know about female head-coverings (hijabs, niqaba, and burkas) as officially defined by only the most “sahih” (official) doctrines of islamic sharia jurisprudence. Read it and laugh.

Or cry.

The currently/still non-citizen Zunera Ishaq, is demanding (even before she’s been confirmed as a Canadian citizen, before earning any possible rights to demand anything of any one of us!) to wear her face-covering Niqab to her Citizenship ceremony.

According to her liberal media sponsors in the Ottawa Citizen, on Saturday, February 10, 2015, P.# A10:

In her affidavit filed with the court, Ishaq wrote that through research, she came to the conclusion that wearing a niqab was “mandatory to my faith” and “integral to the modesty that a muslim woman must show.” But only a small minority of muslim women wear niqabs in Canada.

“I feel most at ease with myself and comfortable in my own skin when I am wearing my niqab,” she wrote. “In fact, there was one time when I had to call 911 due to the sudden birth of my second son at home. At the time when the emergency attendants came to my house I was not wearing my niqab, and my primary concern was covering my face before I could be seen. I did not leave the house until I was sure I be was covered.”

OK, QUITE SIMPLY, SHE’S LYINGAND SO IS JUSTIN TRUDEAU, ON HER BEHALF.

“Judge” Keith Boswell is supporting wannabe but currently non-Canadian-Citizen Zunera Ishaq’s false claims that she feels “that the governmental policy regarding veils at citizenship ceremonies is a personal attack on me, my identity as a Muslim woman and my religious beliefs,” and that said governmental regulations didn’t agree with other governmental regulations, which require citizenship judges to administer the oath with “dignity and solemnity, allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof.”

The “judge” negligently errs in his total lack of assessment consideration of even the most basic, cursory glance into the official islamic source “reasons” – as given right in the Qur’an and sahih (official) hadiths – for a muslim women’s alleged requirement for covering up in public:

The Hijab (or Niqab, as in this specific case) is not a religious duty or fashion trend, it’s only a prison uniform!

It’s also a victim-blaming insult to both sexes; from Qur’an Sura 33:59, it is a slanderous statement that implies the muslim men (and all men, just like Muhammad himself allegedly was) are so at the mercy of their hormones, that they must molest and rape any and all women they can see; so it’s always the women’s own fault for not covering up.

It also says the muslim men have a duty to molest and rape all the infidel women for not covering up!

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. That will be better so that they will be known so as not to be molested. And Allâh is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’ân 33:59)

So, exactly HOW will they “be known,” in the freedom sack?!

Certainly not as in: “Oh, I know her! Hi, Mary!” – but “known” as muslimas – as members of the gang!

And why is this important? “So as not to be molested!”

Which again implies that muslims DID and always WILL “molest” (i.e: rape,) all the NON-muslim (“infidel”) women!

That it’s the infidel women’s faults, because they don’t cover up, that the muslim men “must” molest (rape) them!

And the Qur’an itself confirms their holy right and duty to rape infidel women.

Muhammad also said women are created by allah as domesticated animals, created for men’s pleasure, and like fields to be tilled at will by men.

So islam is also the “Religion of Rape!”

;-(

Before Muhammad, covering up was optional; any fool could ignore it if they wanted to.

The tafsir ahadith isnads (supplemental, explanatory material appending the Qur’an) explain that the Sura in question (33:59) arose because Moe’s wives were seen by moonlight as they went potty outside his tent one night.

But, quite unlike any other self-respecting warlord, who would have had the peeping tom executed for spying on his wives, Moe agreed with the man and blamed his victims, (his own wives) perhaps because the peeper was a rich or influential member of an allied tribe.

Bottom line: “Judge” Keith Boswell should be schooled that there is no inherent “dignity” whatsoever in catering to Zunera Ishaq’s imaginings, AND FEARS OF OTHER MUSLIMS, that she should be forced to hide in a sack, by sole dint of the fear of “inevitable” rape by men, as inflicted on her mental state by her own previous, habitually misogynistic, crime-culture background.

FINALLY, AS FOR HER CLAIMS THAT MUSLIMAS MUST COVER UP IN FRONT OF NON-BLOOD-RELATION DOCTORS AND PHYSICIANS, (including, of course, Canadian PARAMEDICS) SHE ALSO FAILED TO DO EVEN BASIC RESEARCH:

The Hedaya, (as first translated into English in Bengal in 1791) is the primary Haneefite sharia law manual, and, as such, was used for centuries to administer law to all the muslims in the world, under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

From The Hedaya, Volume 1, Book 6, Chapter 6, P.#290-291 (Divorce):

“the carnal connexion, or other acts, as before stated, are peculiar to marriage, especially in the case of free women, since, with respect to them, they cannot be lawful but through marriage, – and, with respect to female slaves, they are sometimes lawful by right of marriage, and sometimes by right of possession: contrary to touching, or looking at the pudenda of a woman, without lust, because that is sometimes lawful without marriage, as in the case of a physician or midwife; and the sight of other parts than the pudenda sometimes happens to people who reside together; and as a wife resides with her husband during her Edit, if such an accident {291} were to imply Rijaat, he might then give her another divorce, to her injury, as it would protract her Edit.”

…and:

Volume 2, Book 7, Chapter 3, P.#51 (Punishments)

EVIDENCE TO WHOREDOM IS VALID, ALTHOUGH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACT BE UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED.

“If witnesses bear evidence of whoredom against a man, declaring that “they had come to the knowledge of it by wilfully looking into the person’s private apartment at the time of the fact,” yet such evidence is to be credited, nor is it to be rejected on account of the manner in which the knowledge of the witnesses was obtained, as their looking was allowable, in order that they might be enabled to bear evidence; they are therefore the same as physicians or midwives ”

…and:

Volume 3, Book 23, Chapter 2, P.# 35:

“The defect may also be of such a nature as required the inspection of women or physicians: — but although the opinion of women or physicians be sufficient to prevent contention, yet it is not a sufficient ground for a decree of restitution: there is, therefore, a necessity for the proofs aforesaid; — unless, indeed, the Kazee himself witness the sale and perceive the defect, in which case there is no necessity whatever for those proofs.”

AND, FINALLY AND DEFINITIVELY:

From Volume 4, Book 44, P.# 97 & 98:

Rules to be observed by a physician in prescribing for women.

“A PHYSICIAN, in administering to a strange woman, is permitted to look at the part affected. It is, however, most adviseable that he instruct another woman how to apply the remedy, as the circumstance of an individual of one sex looking at another of the same is of less consequence. If he should not be able to procure a fit woman to instruct, it is in that case incumbent on him to cover all the members of the woman, leaving exposed only the particular part affected, when he may look towards it; refraining from it however as much as is possible, since any thing the sufferance of which is prompted by necessity, ought to be exercised with as much restriction as the circumstances of the case will admit. — In the same manner also, it is lawful for a man, in administering a glyster to a man, to look at the proper part.”

THEM’S THE FACTS, JACKWHO NEEDS OPINION POLLS WHEN YOU’VE GOT THE FACTS?!

;-)
commented 2015-03-14 18:36:24 -0400
The biggest culprits in this are white liberals, especially judges, who are all too willing to throw Canadian values under the multicult bus. This is slow but sure cultural suicide, with Canada’s values and culture gradually being trumped and supplanted by retrograde foreign values. In the case of Islam this means mostly the “values” of a 7th century Saudi Arabian theocratic patriarchy.
commented 2015-03-14 17:34:26 -0400
Judy, please don’t buy too much into the “all Muslim women are downtrodden, bullied victims of misogynist vile males” particularly those in the west. England is just a lot further down the road of insane political correctness where you can be fined if you speak out against the vile practice of Islam. Many women buy into this with a great amount of glee and when I said they push and shove people out of their way, I say it with first hand experience. I do get a little tired of the sanctimonious pedestal we tend to put all women on. There are plenty of bitches out there just as there are lots of nasty men.
commented 2015-03-14 11:50:46 -0400
Canada is pretty open and tolerant about most religious rights except when it comes to putting people’s lives and safety at risk which is why the niqab wearing at swearing in ceremonies is insane. Are we also going to allow immigrants to enter our country without being able to identify who is really hiding behind the veil? How are we supposed to know the wolves when they are dressed in sheep’s clothing. Only a politician would sell out the safety of his fellow countrymen to try to squeeze out a few more votes while trying to pass himself off as being interested in protecting human rights. Who is protecting the rights of the women who have no choice but serving a life sentence of submission and inequality.
commented 2015-03-14 11:23:19 -0400
Friends, I have started a petition against women covering their face for religious reasons like wearing the niqab. This petition states the concerns Canadians have with safety and security with women who conceal their faces. In Toronto not to long ago a mother protested a women bus driver for wearing a niqab. The mother stated that she could not see who was picking up her children and this presented a huge security problem for her. She also was concerned about the safety of her children in that this bus driver could not see properly from the side vision because the niqab restricted her view. Of course the liberal news media reported in favor of the Muslim bus driver stating that the Muslim women had the right based on religious accommodations. What about the mothers right to protect her children? Does this not trump any religious accommodations?
The petition to ban the niqab and all facial coverings for religious reasons, has been started, and over the last 8 weeks we have received over 200 signatures from the limited people that we have talked with. We could use your help to get the momentum going and get as many signatures as possible right across Canada. Please contact me if you would like to sign our petition to ban the niqab in Canada. I have already spoken with a Conservative M.P. who will gladly present this petition to parliament in Ottawa when we are ready. Please make an effort to show your concerns with women wearing the niqab for our security and our safety.
Thank you.
Mark Harding Email: evangelistsofcanada@gmail.com or you can reach me at Canada Christian College 416.391.5000 ext 277.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Mark.
commented 2015-03-14 11:22:08 -0400
Nancy Paul said “These scarecrows love their bags – they push everyone out of the way (see Harrods) and then scream racism if anyone objects” , referring to the fact that many women in ‘wide clothing’ love their garb. The words they speak ARE the words of the men. They cannot speak for themselves! Let’s see it more clearly…they are backed by (actually imprisoned by) their brutally dominant self-entitled men, all of them, fathers, brothers, husbands, uncles…as long as they stay in the ‘bags’ they have lots of men to help them push. They really have never heard that there is hope for any other way of life. Our way of life is misrepresented to them. What I don’t agree with is that they love the bags. They are slaves whose only strength is in FULL OBEDIENCE. Their courts will imprison them for disobeying any man. I don’t sympathize when they are in large numbers like this because they still feel the power of hatred and abuse controlling their whole lives and have become misogynistic like their OWNERS.

My sympathy is for the individual who really longs for liberty and is trapped in this prison culture. It is to those few we say “come out”… crying ‘GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH’…although I do have sympathy for these who have never heard that there is a choice. They may die as ignorant slaves of a putrid cultural system of sordid abuse, condemnation and violence. May God give them eyes to see! May God give our politicians eyes to see! Only Harper seems to have compassion for them…the others who oppose him obviously have NO HEART for the oppressed.
commented 2015-03-14 08:46:29 -0400
It’s disrespect of the highest level. They see Canada like they see Europe where they’ve elbowed their way in. Now it’s to the point where there are no-go zones in many cities in Europe.
The BBC and other left wing media won’t mention it. Here in Canada, we still have a chance to save our way of life if we put measures in place to put Islam and all religions for, that matter, in their place.
With religions chewing and gnawing away at our Canadian values, you never notice how bad the termite situation is til your house collapses on top of you.
commented 2015-03-14 08:35:24 -0400
We are only now beginning to learn what Muslims, Islam, jihad, etc is all about, or has been about for the past 1400 years as we try to extrapolate time back past the middle ages in order to learn many things that we had missed in highschool history class. It will be difficult to turn around 1400 years of oppression of women, slavery, jihad and tiqiyya; but however difficult, it is absolutely necessary in the name of humanity.

The niqab is one of many inventions of Sharia law and this is how women are treated under Sharia law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaVXXQsAOjM#t=222 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUM3pTwp6xY
http://www.news.com.au/national/burqa-bans-already-in-place-in-many-countries/story-fncynjr2-1227078762996
http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article129678384/Auch-Deutschland-sollte-die-Burka-verbieten.html
http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/afghan-men-take-to-streets-wearing-burqas-to-highlight-womens-rights-issues/story-fnh81ifq-1227252273985?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=News.com.au&utm_medium=Facebook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEsCt2ua8Bg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsCdccXLP8M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsCdccXLP8M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oij99bDBoOY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_AHJQiMxIw
commented 2015-03-14 02:15:28 -0400
As many here have pointed out, this is not a “religious” issue, since Islam doesn’t mandate a face-covering. But more important, why is the discussion being limited to Citizenship Court instead of all court appearances? Isn’t it necessary to be able to identify the person participating in all court proceedings? Why are Harper, Trudeau, et al, limiting the discussion to the “anti-woman” costume of the veiled woman instead of her identity? Quite simply, all participants in a proceeding need to be identifiable – at all times.
commented 2015-03-13 23:38:26 -0400
One thing Gerald Butts and his protégé, Justin Trudeau, don’t seem to grasp: the people with those opinions vote!
commented 2015-03-13 21:37:59 -0400
I am happy to see these polls being conducted. Even among Liberal and NDP supporters people are overwhelmingly opposed to the Niqab. What I would like to see next are polls conducted asking the following question:

Should Canada put an end to immigration from Muslim countries?

I bet the response would be overwhelmingly YES!
commented 2015-03-13 21:10:12 -0400
Thanks for what might be a good idea Joan.
Why doesn’t someone ask The Queen?
The oath is sworn to her, would she want to see the face of the person making the declaration or would it be okay with her if someone was wearing a Niqab, ski mask or Burqa?
commented 2015-03-13 21:00:05 -0400
Well … since Justin Trudeau is not very smart, his chief adviser must be the brains of his operation.
One thing that can be said for the Federal Liberals that can not for the Conservatives is that … The Leader has Butts for Brains … Literally :-)
Anyone who has been paying attention should have noticed that the entire “Progressive” movement does NOT believe in facts anymore than they believe in morals. For someone who was brought up with morals and to make decisions based on the best facts available … I can not understand how “Progressive” politicians make decisions … maybe that is the problem … often they flip flop and equivocate but only follow the scent of money they can direct into their own pockets.
commented 2015-03-13 20:02:32 -0400
Why is this even a debate?? Not only should women in Canada not cover themselves in full body bags but as far as I am concerned Muslim immigration should be halted immediately. The ideology is sick and perverted. And to those who think these women need to be “protected” and are “forced” to cover themselves – try visiting England. These scarecrows love their bags – they push everyone out of the way (see Harrods) and then scream racism if anyone objects. A vile ideology with one aim – world domination. Is this what our fathers fought for in the great wars??
commented 2015-03-13 19:36:51 -0400
Let’s get a more representative survey from across Canada instead of focused so tightly on Toronto. Let’s hear what FN, Maritimers, Prairies folk, Quebec and west coasters think.

Despite what Butts tweets (yawn), law-making, including about this issue when it is considered by the SCC, must consider the impact it has on the freedoms and human rights protected by the Constitution Act of Canada.

During the ritual oath of pledging allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and promising to fulfill his/her duties as a Canadian, the public must be free and able to bear witness it is the Citizenship Oath the new citizen is pledging allegiance to and not the Islamic shahada.
commented 2015-03-13 19:32:30 -0400
They should be asked to remove this at least for the Citizenship Ceremony. Two or three of them on a street are scarring young children, unfortunately.
commented 2015-03-13 18:52:25 -0400
The truly disturbing aspect of these face coverings is that Moslems KNOW it is alien to our culture and that Westerners are unsettled and intimidated by the wearing of a mask in public – but they DON’T CARE.
The wearing of burkas, niqubs etc here is a gesture of their contempt for us – a giant middle finger to our volues (which they despise).

They may despise our values, but they sure love our overly-generous welfare system!
commented 2015-03-13 18:14:59 -0400
My take on this is, when a muslim woman makes the pilgrimage to mecca, the holiest of things for a muslim, they are not allowed to cover their face. I believe that becoming a citizen of this country should be held in the same reverence as that. If by your religion you are not allowed to cover your face then, well you should accept that by our countries laws are not allowed to cover your face for that ceremony.
commented 2015-03-13 17:53:00 -0400
I have always said that I have no problem with anyone wearing what ever they want whenever they please and to practice religious beliefs in what ever manner they see fit but I am sorry I have to agree that when a person is taking an oath to become a Canadian citizen facial coverings should be removed. I would love to be able to see the face of the person joining our family. It does not mean that I am a racist nor does it mean I discriminate against any one religion. Why do these debates have to take on such negativity? Cover your face again when the ceremony is finished. So simple a task but a task that is causing such divide among people that it is getting harder to hear day after day after day.
commented 2015-03-13 17:34:22 -0400
and this is about someone who before even becoming Canadian wants it to change the rules?
commented 2015-03-13 17:17:59 -0400
~30% of Canadians either don’t care or are as stupid as the day is long. Both speak volumes about the state of the nation.
commented 2015-03-13 16:51:02 -0400
Other broadcasting companies & oppositions, just bla-bla-bla the Conservative to get points. But I believe majority of Canadians, with the right sense, knows what is the TRUTH & RIGHT!
commented 2015-03-13 16:27:45 -0400
Gerald Butthead is he a ass?
commented 2015-03-13 15:57:44 -0400
I care. Because it is Canada, and when they come over here carrying on with their old world ways…they diminish us even further. Can’t be allowed to happen.
commented 2015-03-13 15:51:14 -0400
Who really gives a shit. But for the record they should not be allowed to wear their head gear. This is Canada and taking the oath is a civil procedure, not a religious one. They need to learn to separate their islam ideology from Canadian citizenship. This is not the middle east and never will be, so back off. By allowing this the weirdo imams and head muslim honchos/terrorists are winning their fight to islamize the entire world.