March 18, 2015

On the niqab issue, who is the real bully? Harper or Mulcair?

Brian LilleyArchive

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says that Stephen Harper is trying to bully Muslim women and tell them what to wear.

But I can tell you who is really trying to force women to wear the niqab -- and it ain't Stephen Harper.

So what is Mulcair's game?

Trying to silence Conservatives from speaking, of course.

Have your say in the comments!

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

GET INVOLVED in our 100% grassroots crowdfunding campaign and help us bring you more stories like this one every day!

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

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-03-23 12:14:33 -0400
Since this issue relates to the Niqab, I wish you’d shown a picture of a woman in a Niqab. The Niqab covers or masks the entire face with the exception of an open slit across the eyes – similar to a balaclava. While Muslim women are required by their religion to dress in a certain way to cover most of their bodies, they are NOT REQUIRED TO COVER THEIR FACE with a Niqab. The majority of imams – including those of the four schools, as well as others agree and hold the opinion that a woman is not obliged to cover her face and hands.
Since wearing a Niqab is not a religious issue, it must then be a personal preference. True, it may be the personal preference of the woman’s husband or father. But, if it were my personal preference to wear a balaclava into a courtroom, I have a pretty good idea the Judge would make me remove it (if I got as far as the courtroom). If I entered an airport or bank wearing my balaclava, I’ve got a hunch I’d be quickly surrounded by Security Guards with drawn guns. If I were pulled over by Police while driving my car, I’m pretty sure they would insist I remove my balaclava. Why should my personal preferences be treated with less respect and regard than those of Muslim men and women?
commented 2015-03-22 20:55:43 -0400
Well said Brian. Well said. 👏👍👏
Muslim woman are demanding far to much. They would NEVER Get or possibly be killed for in the Middle East. What boggles my mind is most of these woman ( if you want to call them that ) would be killed god things they ARE doing here. They and All Muslims should be Kissing OUR CANADIAN Asses. Sharia Law and the stupid damn Burka and the Nijab is A joke. It’s NOT ANY Part of their Religion and yet still done judges make it like it is. Example.
Alberta I think if is — Muslim police woman there demanded they are allowed to wear their own head gear. Haha. And it was ruled A YES. OMG JUDGE KNOWS it is NOT A Religion thing and yet he went along with it and agreed they are Allowed to wear it. WHAT ??? It is NOT A part of the police uniform. I think it’s BS they should have to wear what ALL Other police woman and men wear. Ban the Nijab. The Burka and the rest in public. They can wear helmet and a garbage bag in their Homes for all ppl care but. But not out in public we don’t know who is wearing them.
Again Brian
Thank you for always getting us the news.
commented 2015-03-22 16:21:17 -0400
This is getting very tired. Most Canadians surveyed spoke their mind and agreed that becoming a citizen meant showing your face. Do we need to rewrite or create a new law every time one person disagrees? Our government makes laws to protect us from ourselves and makes laws to preserve our customs or to do better. How about these loophole lawyers defending what the majority of Canadians want ! And stop calling it racist !! It wouldn’t matter what colour skin or religion or gender was under that veil !!
commented 2015-03-20 15:40:14 -0400
To Ron Voss, That is refreshingly the words of Blaise Pascal in his collection of philosophical “Pense” (excuse the disabled French spellcheck) “Les amis du raison sont un clique miserablement petite” (The friends of reason are a miserably small elite club).

“When fencing never waste your energy fighting your opponent’s sword…fight the man wielding the sword.”…Musashi
commented 2015-03-19 14:14:11 -0400
Harper isn’t dictating what they should wear. Oh my gosh. That’s like being told you have to wear black pants at work as part of your uniform and then you trying to get mad and say that you are being bullied into wearing something you don’t want to. I personally think that the niqab signifies a culture that it itself bullies women and sees women as inferior – why would we want that in Canada? Regardless, he’s saying that these coverings cannot be worn during the Canadian ceremony thing when these people become Canadian.
commented 2015-03-19 10:41:35 -0400
It would appear Brian Lilly has wisened up some. That was an excellent argument which might have been borrowed from the vast silent majority.
commented 2015-03-19 07:05:33 -0400
As in his earlier posts, “Elites ‘losing their collectivist minds’ over Harper’s remarks on guns and self-defence” (March 18) and “What Harper said about guns and self-defence that’s driving Canada’s elite crazy” (March 17), Brian Lilley here, once again, is expressing disbelief and frustration with respect the narrative from the leftist ‘progressive’ elites in response to seemingly innocuous comments made by PM Stephen Harper about guns and self-defense in a rural setting, as well as, the position taken by Harper and others in his Government with respect to the niqab.
However, what to Brian Lilley is exasperating that the leftist elites are seemingly “losing their collectivist minds”, is really nothing more than the leftists being FULLY in character, advancing a narrative causing as much confusion, polarization, and fear as possible, according to their playbook for doing so. Brian asks, “So what is Mulcair’s game?”
If you don’t know your enemy, you can’t defeat your enemy (to paraphrase 6th century BC Chinese general and military strategist Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War). In 1971, leftist community agitator Saul Alinsky wrote “Rules for Radicals – A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals”, which provides some of his best advice on relentless confrontational tactics to bring about “social change”. Interestingly, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer, whom he called the ‘first radical’. Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society.
Whether we like it or not, everyone on the Left from the President Obama on down is playing by Alinsky’s rules in the political arena. For several years, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.

Here’s a summary by Glenn Beck of “Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals”:
Consider how much you see being dispensed by the left falling in line with Alinsky’s tactics.
For example, consider Rule #3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. Beck notes, “This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments (like those from Mulcair and Lawrence Martin) that they are then forced to address.” Or, Rule #12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. Beck notes, “This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.” Polarization is at the core of the Left’s strategy. Thus, we see Harper portrayed as a ‘bully’ by Mulcair or Lawrence Martin in the Globe & Mail advances the seemingly preposterous argument that Harper and his band of ‘belligerent’ Conservatives are stoking fear by “pushing hot buttons everywhere”, thereby “pitting one Canadian against another”. Brian responds to Martin’s comments, “Really, Larry, maybe it is you and people like you pitting one group of Canadians against the other.” Precisely! Lawrence is just following the “Rules for Radicals”, so Brian shouldn’t be so perplexed and outraged. Thus, to understand why the ‘progressives’ do what they do, we need to become familiar with the vision that Alinsky advanced in his book
commented 2015-03-19 02:21:18 -0400
If Stephen Harper is telling Muslim women how to dress, then Thomas Mulcair is telling them to stay oppressed. It’s such a none religious issue to even have to comment on. But the left void of any arguments of value use that as an excuse. It’s a cultural issue for sure. It’s also an example of patriarchal thinking to such an extent that it is simply misogynistic in nature. Women and children have been killed for not wearing it.
If wearing an article of clothing for comfort mind as well as body is acceptable, would it not be acceptable for a white male to wear the white sheet and hood of the KKK if it made them more comfortable?
commented 2015-03-19 00:53:19 -0400
Every time Thomas Mulcair opens his mouth, he demonstrates why he must never become Prime Minister of Canada. Fortunately, most Canadians are not yet stupid enough to put him into that job. But maybe if he ran for premier of Ontario it would be a different story.
commented 2015-03-18 23:23:35 -0400
Nothing gags the gab like a black niqab.

Isn’t Mulcair being sexist? Come on. It’s a good gangster look for men too!

Can’t shut Conservatives up even with a Ben Levin ball gag. We exercise our freedoms on principle and there ain’t nothin’ the left can do to stop us.

So put that in your bong and remain incoherent, veiled Che groupies!
commented 2015-03-18 23:05:59 -0400
As a male not flattered with my own receding hairline I am told when going to get my driver’s license I can’t wear a ball cap any more. OK that sucks but I wouldn’t dream of concealing my face. What would be the point of having an photo i.d. if it didn’t reveal who I am? So where does the so called right to wear a niqab end? If hey were asked to appear in a police line up could they keep their face covered? How would the police hope to identify anyone with their face covered? And please I am in no way suggesting these women are more prone to commit crimes than any other demographic. Still if our laws are going to allow their faces to be covered how then can the same right be denied to anyone else ho wishes to conceal their face. I mean if we are all supposed to be afforded equal treatment under the law how then can they deny anybody else the same treatment? All this political correctness is undermining our basic human right of equality.
commented 2015-03-18 20:41:55 -0400
Mr Mulchair has no lawful mandate or lawful standing to speak for any group collectively other than the riding that elected him. His arrogant assertions of speaking for any group that have not given him lawful mandate to do so is pure bluff. CALL HIS BLUFF
commented 2015-03-18 20:32:27 -0400
OMG when is this issue going to be put to rest. Mr. Harper is not trying to tell Muslim what to wear he is simply saying remove the face covering while taking the oath to become a Canadian citizen. He is perfectly right on this issue. The NDP and Liberals should be sounding off about more important issues and as we all know there are certainly far more serious issues to be discussed. These people need to get a grip.
commented 2015-03-18 20:09:05 -0400
a niqab is not an article of clothing but a weapon of confinement. They need to become illegal in Canada for safety of our society. Too many men wearing them for nefarious reasons…like the one who wore one to get into his ex-wife’s apartment and murder her last year. The left is so wrong on this.
commented 2015-03-18 19:57:23 -0400
The design of the niqab makes it a device to mask the identity of the wearer. Very similar to disquises used by bank robbers, and people who are up to no good (like rioters and illegal protesters). That is the reason that I would want a ban on the wearing of one. Why not just change the design to be like a long black dress with a high back collar ? Anyone who hides their face in public to this extent has serious issues whether imposed on them or not.
commented 2015-03-18 19:41:35 -0400
To Clint Carpenter, Unfortunately Mulchair is an over educated moron…he was the dean of a law school. I dread living in a Canada that is the campus of that law school writ large complete with speech codes. The tactic of demanding an apology from every elected official over what they have to say is an insult to everyone who elected those officials to speak for them and Mr Mulchair’s assertions of the great collective groups who he pretends to speak for is a bluff that I for one would be willing to call….MR MULCHAIR YOU CAN KISS MY ASS.
commented 2015-03-18 19:33:27 -0400
The niqab is Saudi cultural export. Has nothing to do with religion.
This is just another matter for the socialists to grab hold of and make issue of with the backing of the CBC, Torstar, Globe and NP – aka the mainstream media (or the media party)….. to dethrone Harper so the man-child Justine can run the country (or so they hope).

The lefty strategy currently is not to blog this site with their spew – for fear that this site goes mainstream. Well lefty turds, it already has.
commented 2015-03-18 19:31:51 -0400
Mulclair is an uneducated moron. I am also sick and tired of people (Muslims included) that keep saying the niqab is part of the Muslim faith. Read the Q’uarn carefully and you will see that it is not mentioned once. It is cultural, it was created by weak men that believed if they saw any part of a woman, they would lose control.
commented 2015-03-18 19:25:41 -0400
Do they get to where their niqab for their passport picture?
commented 2015-03-18 19:06:45 -0400
Brian, the real problem with the NDP’s and Liberals is that they don’t listen and read THE REBEL! They listen to other stations!