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: ShowYourFace.ca
Who are Canada's radical Muslim leaders?
FIND OUT and fight back at CanadianJihad.ca
JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.
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.
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?.
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.
VAST NUMBERS?
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.
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.: http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/girls-should-not-be-segregated-on-public-school-property/ https://www.change.org/p/dont-segregate-menstruating-girls-in-public-schools http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/06/toronto-dad-upset-hes-not-allowed-to-watch-daughters-swim-class ) 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: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/values-at-heart-of-islamic-tensions/article989709/?page=all
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.
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/1229959_162851183919358_2121621252_n.jpg?oh=ee90d38f87d16b7e113dac38fb15bbfb&oe=56A4652C
Why don’t we all try this and show the “legal” system what we really think of it?
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: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/203710/airport-security-double-standards-david-menzies or the double standard at colleges: http://www.youngcons.com/student-refuses-to-remove-cap-in-bromley-college-unless-muslim-women-remove-their-headdresses/
A burka does hide identity. Couple of examples. http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/07/13/woman-muslim-garb-robbing-philadelphia-banks/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/bank-robber-dons-muslim-woman-s-head-scarf-1.924005
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.
Ever wonder what unsightly bruising or swelling may be under those burkas? I know I do.
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.
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)
“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.
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.
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?
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 http://www.ciactivist.org/FreeNews.html