April 21, 2017

Special Gun Rights for Muslims?!

Faith GoldyRebel Host
 

When I applied for my Canadian firearms licence after passing my federally mandated PAL and RPAL courses, the RCMP got all of my information. They asked for everything from medical history, relationship history, familial structures, and a photograph. 

However, when I recently logged online to renew my license, I noticed something peculiar:

An exception to the usual regulation requiring a photograph, citing religious exemption!

So, I contacted the RCMP, and you won't believe what happens next.

While I'm no fan of tighter gun control measures, shouldn't all law-abiding gun-owners be treated equally in Canada?

Why are special rights being granted to members of certain religious sects while other Canadians are held to a different standard?

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-04-23 16:59:53 -0400 · Flag
…but you have obfuscated.

The only religions in Canada to which any exemptions might apply would be Islam and the Anabaptist’s sects I mentioned below, consisting of Hutterites, Mennonites and Amish…but for different reasons.

One uses the stipulation in their religion to not be photographed at all. The other, Islam, would be able to use the stipulation that the more fundamentalist sects of Islam have a valid reason for exemption for a veiled woman as the RCMP confirmed. Only one of those ‘religions’ hides their face. That ‘religion’ is Islam which in actuality makes it the FIRST theocracy to be eligible for an exemption.

This was a quick vid on a new find(which was that the ‘RCMP firearms licencing department’ told Faith she could apply as a veiled woman for an exemption.) You seem to be ignoring the words your ears must have heard from the person on the other end of the phone. I await the rest of the story as I am sure if you are aware of any of Faith’s other in depth reports will be forthcoming.

This introduction to a flaw in one of our laws points directly to those who would be able to make use of the flaw. Given Islam’s history of peace, compared to the Anabaptists, I would lean to being more concerned with Islamic misuse of the law.

Has it happened , we will see. If anyone who could get an Imam to sign off for them had the intentions of the female portion of the San Bernadino attackers for example, a firearm could be purchased without visual confirmation by any woman wearing a veil, not even necessarily the original licence holder.

There are no other groups applicable to the conversation.

I would fight for your right to your opinion with my life, Sherri Anne Wills.
commented 2017-04-23 16:12:29 -0400 · Flag
Liza I do understand what you are saying and I do comprehend what this Faith is saying but if one looks at the Five Principles of Journalism for ethical standards one would see that this lacks both fairness and Impartiality as well as Humanity as when one looks at other discussion that are going transpiring on other forms based on this story one would see that the lack of information and investigation is lead people to believe things that are not factually true. So saying there was lack of research is not either obfuscate nor shifting responsibility in my opinion. It is also good to check the fact or situation that you are trying to portray is actually possible. Just because they can apply does not mean they will be accepted.

By the letter of this Act (law) and the Spirit of it, I would say that it is more probably then not that a veiled women would be turned down for the exemption as they are allowed to have their photos taken by family members in private and the male members of this religion can have their photos take so there is no religious reason that prohibit them from being photographed.

The Act (law) does not state anywhere about women who can not show their faces in public.

Thus why I stated that more investigation need to be done before one could jump to that conclusion. I understand your point of view and you are entitled to is just as I am of mine. Just because I see things from a different angle does not make me in denial. It makes me a critical thinker as one who does her own research and refuses to jump to conclusions. Thank you for this conversation and I hope you have a wonderful evening.

By the way here is the exemption section of this law for reference to wording please notice the last part of (b) (2) An application that is made by an individual who, for religious reasons, cannot be photographed must be accompanied by

(a) a declaration, signed by the applicant, stating that the applicant cannot, for religious reasons, be photographed; and

(b) a declaration, signed by an individual who is of the same religion as the applicant and who is authorized under the laws of a province to solemnize marriages, stating that that religion prohibits the taking of photographs of its members and that the applicant is a member of that religion.

Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-199/page-2.html#h-10
commented 2017-04-23 14:30:06 -0400 · Flag
Mike Dunbar says, “You’ve painted this as a muslim-favoring law, but anybody with the power to perform a marriage in ANY RELIGION can sign off for the exemption.”

Mike that is a false statement. Not any religion can get an exemption.

Someone who has the power to perform a marriage in a religion which claims either it is against their religious doctrine to have their picture taken at all, or a religion which claims it is against their religious doctrine to have their women show their faces in public is eligible for the exemption.

Islam(Muslims) and Protestant reformists known as Anabaptists (Hutterites, Mennonites and the Amish) are only eligible for the exemption, as no other religion has any written doctrine which contradicts showing their identity or having photo’s taken.

Who’s basic Mike.
commented 2017-04-23 13:21:40 -0400 · Flag
To suggest a lack of research on Faith’s part, comes off as obfuscatory, shifting responsibility for a refusal/inability to comprehend the simple reality of this article back onto the author. In a nutshell, people who own guns should be visibly identifiable. The only group of people in Canada who cover their faces are those of the Islamic faith.

Loop holes in our laws need to be closed so that they are not used in a manner not intended by the law makers.
commented 2017-04-23 13:20:16 -0400 · Flag
It does not matter Sheri Anne Wills ,if not even one Muslim has ever applied or applied and been rejected. That is a common tactic of someone in denial. Danger is danger, and the law, as it is written regardless of when it was written or who it was written for, is ripe for abuse from anyone who can under the rules claim a religious exemption. It poses a danger to Canada. Now, if you want to say this is maybe ‘profiling’ Muslims you may be right. What other group of people hide their faces? I would also say that it would be a perfectly normal and prudent expectation that Muslims could and or would attempt to use this law to their advantage, as they have used many of our other laws against us, in the name of furthering Islamic dominance in Canada. Islam’s agenda is clearly stated in the Koran, and ask any Muslim and they will either tell you outright or tell you taqiyya style, that we will all be happier if we embrace Islam, they mean, it is better/wiser to submit. (if you did the research you would know this).

Not all Muslims you say? Absolutely correct I say. Just the ones who insinuate themselves into our governing and legal institutions and the ones who insist on accommodation instead of assimilation, such as the right to hide their identity in a western society.

Not only is Islam actually the only theocratic religion to ever apply for any religious exemptions( driver licence, passport, voting ID, etc) they are the only ‘religion’ to cover their faces. That is problematic in the west and makes those who do it a target for ‘that extra check’, which is normal,rational and reasonable behavior.

“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
- Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Richard Price. October 9, 1790.
commented 2017-04-23 12:06:56 -0400 · Flag
Liza Rosie. My point is if you are reporting on something then find out all the facts. Do we know for a fact that Muslims are using this exemption and/or they are being accepted or rejected. How many people from any religion actually applies fir the exemption and how many exemptions are granted. This section may need to be amended but true journalism does not jump to conclusions it follows all leads and facts to a conclusion. Only one question was answered with no follow up. Thus leave people to believe that this exemption is being abused by one religion. Also allow one to think it was enacted recently.
Now if Faith was not aware of this when she first applied (it was enacted in 2004), then who isto say that Muslim or any other religion was aware of this other then those that petitioned for it without investigating further. Now that it has been reported this way the doors may have been open for it to be abused if it is not amended.
commented 2017-04-23 11:21:08 -0400 · Flag
LIZA ROSIE, well said.
commented 2017-04-23 10:40:10 -0400
It would be highly unprofessional procedure for the ‘RCMP firearms licencing department’ which is where Faith placed her call, to not give out the correct information. The woman who answered the phone was knowledgeable and answered all of Faiths questions, furthermore she sounded as though she had heard the question before. In addition, Faith was instructed to call the firearms office in her province if she had any trouble with the exemption form required and was given an ext. number.

No one said this clause was written FOR Muslims, but it is ripe for abuse by people who hide their identity under the ‘religious exemption’ clause, which in my opinion should not exist in the first place. Since it does exist on the books, it should be of concern to everyone who isn’t an apologist for those who hide their identity, in a country where it is OUR tradition to walk the streets unmasked. This Hutterite/Amish exemption floors me, but at least they don’t walk around with a face obscuring veil. You are able to see the face of the person who holds the gun licence(and gun). Veiled women, no picture and no identity exposure necessary for purchase of a gun. In what world does this seem like a good idea? Is this not the point, Mike Dunbar and Sherri-Anne Wills ?
commented 2017-04-23 09:16:04 -0400 · Flag
You basic-ass bitch. This is NOT a muslim-favoring law. Who do you even think you are? Call yourself a nerd, but your grasp of the facts is alarming. How dare you even call yourself a Canadian?

Ever heard of Menonites, or the the Amish? This law has favored them for longer than you’ve been alive, you millennial knob. I’m actually skeptical that you’ve ever hunted for anything other than a Pumpkin Spice Latte in your life. I’m actually confident that your production team did all your research but I digress.

You’ve painted this as a muslim-favoring law, but anybody with the power to perform a marriage in ANY RELIGION can sign off for the exemption. It’s unfortunate that you probably care more about having your photo taken than the card it’s printed on, but here we are. Maybe if you were actually smart enough to do your own research, you’d apply the exemption to yourself? I suppose that doesn’t support your narrative? Hopefully you get put in your place like that idiot Tomy Lahren, but I doubt it because you’re on literally nobody’s radar.

You’re basic. Enjoy your Starbucks.
commented 2017-04-23 07:54:18 -0400 · Flag
After doing a bit more research and before I can jump to any conclusions that veil women are applying for this exemption and actual being accepted, I have a question. Faith did you call the client representatives number? If so then basically you called a call centre which would only be able to answer basic questions as that is all they are set up to do. I believe this to be the case since there was a pause for her to ask/seek for the answer.

Calling the client representatives number is like calling the 800 number on the back of you bank card and asking them questions about interest rates on a loan. They will give you basic information on it and even tell you, you could apply for a 1% interest loan. Yet when you apply in person at the bank you find out that you do not qualify for that rate.

If one is doing a full investigation on this they should have contacted the Chief Firearms Office as to how the process works. Asking if veiled women apply and are these applications accepted also the number of application with this exception apply are accepted or declined. As well as other follow up questions like. How long has this exception been in the act and why was it enacted.

The more I read and research, a declaration and an application for this exemption is not automatically accepted.

One must remember sensationalizing something to feed an emotional response is not good journalism nor investigative reporting. If one is trying to combat MSM then one must not follow in their way of reporting as well.

Thank you Faith for taking the time to read my comments. (I am assuming you are)
commented 2017-04-23 02:11:42 -0400 · Flag
Can’t remember having to worry about Hutterites screaming allahu crap shoot recently. Watch out for exploding chickens.
commented 2017-04-23 02:07:16 -0400 · Flag
I agree Cathy, Under no circumstances is something like this okay. Why wouldn’t Muslims take a stupid Canadian law and use it to their advantage? They are masters at looking for them. What this does is shine a light on a law which must absolutely be changed as it was never meant to be used this way at this time. Call it what you want. It is still undeniably stupid to allow ‘veiled’ women an exemption from having their photo on a firearms license for any reason.

Also religious exceptions have got to stop, across the board when it comes to Canadian law.
commented 2017-04-22 19:59:15 -0400 · Flag
Shawn. One problem with your solution according to the exemption is that a member of the church who is able to officiate marriages in your Provence must arrive in person with you at the office to apply for the exemption. Also just because someone fills out the declaration for exemption does not automatically get accepted.
commented 2017-04-22 19:07:26 -0400 · Flag
Maura, get real, does it really matter when or why people are exempt from having a photo for a GUN LICENSE? Under no circumstances is something like this okay. By the way, Hutterites are not waging a global war against the west, but islam is. Looks like your BS was debunked by Drew Wakariuk anyway.
commented 2017-04-22 18:23:54 -0400 · Flag
Maura a picture requires face uncovered , a woman FORCED to wear a face covering would have to remove it. Maybe do some research before you present half truths and accuse others of doing so.
By the way it was fun eating you alive with reality.
commented 2017-04-22 18:22:56 -0400 · Flag
I did some basic research and found that this exemption was available in 2014 so it was in enacted before Justin Trudeau

Source by wayback machine archived on October 4, 2014 https://web.archive.org/web/20141006223931/http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/online_en-ligne/firearms-licence-permis-armes-a-feu-eng.htm

Some quick Additional research found.

When you look at the actual act you will see it was enacted or amended in 2004 because at the end of this section it states SOR/2004-274, s. 13. SOR stands for Statutory Orders and Regulations
Source:http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-199/page-2.html#h-11
According to the Parliaments House publication (minutes) it states this

“In the matter of SOR/2004-274; Regulations Amending the Firearms Licences Regulations, it was agreed that the joint chairs correspond with the acting commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to certain comments made by the committee”

Source: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2&DocId=3595576

So sometime in 2004 this part of the act was amended or enacted. This exemption could even date back further as many Amish are avid hunters but believe photos are against the bible and considered a graven image as well as Mennonites and Hutterites.

If and when I have more time I will try to dig deeper.
commented 2017-04-22 17:10:05 -0400 · Flag
You realize this is not a Muslim law ? It protects religions that do not allow people to be photographed and this law has been around for a long time . FYI don’t know Muslims that don’t take pictures .

This includes Hutterites whose religion does not allow photographs . Listen to you people who believe half truths the rebel states are facts . Do your research .
commented 2017-04-22 16:51:21 -0400 · Flag
The reason for the question, “Why are special rights being granted to members of certain religious sects while other Canadians are held to a different standard?” is complicated, yet simple.

Since the early 60’s there has been a tremendous focus on sex, drugs and rock ’n roll. The entire concept of life as taught by the indestructible Catholic Church has been reviled, scorned, ignored, fought, questioned, debated and fundamentally tossed aside for the benefits of sex, drugs and rock ’n roll, the demands of the flesh, in other words.

Since the advent of the Pill in the 60’s, and the carnage (59 million dead and counting) following the decision in Roe (eggs) v. Wade (wallow in the sewers where our children’s bodies have been flushed in order to feed the rats and vermin found there), there has been an overarching spiritual void likened unto being stultified.

If we take a quick look at what the Archangel Raphael stated to Tobit in that book only found in the Catholic canon, we find a short, succinct description of the cause and effect of the sins of the flesh:

6:16. Then the angel Raphael said to him: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail.

6:17. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.

Thus we can see a cause and effect proposed by the Archangel which is pandemic in our western societies, and undeniably so.

A certain pious monk, Padre Pio, who could read your heart and tell you your sins, and who also had the stigmata of Christ, stated before he died in 1968 that if the demons infesting the world had corporeal bodies, they would blot out the sun.

Since then, one Gloria Polo, a Venezuelan dentist, was struck by lightning and killed. As her soul plummeted toward Hell due to her abortions, she was spared at the last instant by St. Michael the Archangel due to the prayers of her pious deceased mother and a certain pious farmer who heard about her death. You can search Google for “Gloria Polo in Hell” for a rather long description.

Ms. Polo stated that Jesus showed her that every time there is an abortion, hundreds of demons encircle the holocaust and use the innocent blood of the fetus to open something like a seal on earth and release millions more demons from the depths of Hell.

Thus, at a minimum, we can calculate at 59 million dead since Roe v. Wade, 59 TRILLION demans have been unleashed. Daunting concept, isn’t it?

And those in addition to those cited by Padre Pio!

Now, since all this has gone on, we can examine God’s Mind on the matter by availing ourselves of Isaiah 10:1-7:

10:1. Woe to them that make wicked laws: and when they write, write injustice:

10:2. To oppress the poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble of my people: that widows might be their prey, and that they might rob the fatherless.

10:3. What will you do in the day of visitation, and of the calamity which cometh from afar? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory?

10:4. That you be not bowed down under the bond, and fall with the slain? In all these things his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

10:5. Woe to the Assyrian, he is the rod and the staff of my anger, and my indignation is in their hands.

10:6. I will send him to a deceitful nation, and I will give him a charge against the people of my wrath, to take away the spoils, and to lay hold on the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

10:7. But he shall not take it so, and his heart shall not think so: but his heart shall be set to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few.

Now, since the Assyrian “refugees” have overwhelmed the borders of Europe and are causing no end of troubles for the decimated, aging populations of Europe, given over to lust as they have been since the early 60’s, deluded by drugs so that the demons’ collective influence upon each and every one of them eliminates all resistance, and rock ‘n roll’s licentious lyrics pound a steady beat into their minds hour by hour, then the Skinner Box conditioning has become a fait accomplait.

The remedy? Pray the Rosary daily, pray the St. Michael chaplet and pray the Litany of the Saints. If you are Catholic, which is doubtful, take note of the vocational crisis which has left so many Catholic Churches with no priest to hear confessions, transform bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus, nor provide any of the other Sacraments such as Extreme Unction called for in the Catholic Epistle of St. James, satan has been assured of triumph, as no one suspects a thing.

God bless.
commented 2017-04-22 16:36:04 -0400
I’m with Christopher, does anyone know when this photo exemption was put in.
How much more of this garbage are we to stand for. This exemption needs to be investigated and see who was involved into passing it. My guess is, it will be some muslim libtard with a serious conflict of interest. Too many Canadians still don’t get, that we are involved in a holy war, weather we like it or not. If not for Faith Goldy (thanks by the way) I would not know, how easy it’s been made for them to arm themselves, and the rest of us are clueless as to how long this has been going on, shame on this country.
commented 2017-04-22 15:57:04 -0400
CATHERINE O’KEEFFE , if you are going to take us to task at least get your facts right and do it honestly. We are not anti Muslim we are anti ISLAM. There is a difference. Also if you listen to any of Ezra’s interviews with Raza Raheel or Tarek Fatah you will know that Ezra is a strong advocate for Islam’s reform. I don’t hold my breath for any reform of Islam, so personally I would not like to see its accommodation in Canada, but I am all for Muslims who want to integrate AND assimilate into Canadian life and culture as all immigrants have always been mostly willing to do. Multiculturalism has always worked in Canada up until Islam entered the picture. The reason for that is Islams requirement to subjugate all others. That is not going to fly in Canada.

Islam is the problem.
commented 2017-04-22 15:33:13 -0400 · Flag
Western countries are not having babies and an elderly society is crushing the economic health of these countries with an ever decreasing younger class to foot the tax burden. Canada is in a dangerously low Child birth demographic of around 1.5 while the Muslims in Canada are at 3.8. Don’t allow yourselves to become London where the most popular baby name for 2016-17 is Mohammed. The infinite wisdom of the progressives sought to blunt the problem by allowing millions of young Islamist into the countries to prop up the job market and thus the tax revenues. Problem is the young Muslim males weren’t flooding in for jobs, they were drawn like flies to horse dung for the generous welfare offerings the west has to offer, creating an unsustainable economic time bomb. Trudeau and his alter ego Obama was generous to turn our countries over to unvetted and unappreciative Muslims. Although we’re rid of Obama the damage he inflicted will take a generation to repair. He should have been impeached in his first term let alone reelected to a second, but the feminist, gays and Africans adored him. I hope the populist Trudeau can be replaced with a nationalist to begin righting your ship…Start a nationalist movement fast…stigmatize abortion and encourage reproduction, Shame the Uber lesbian feminist movement that has influenced women to stop being mothers and nurturers, (who are by the way, the nucleus of a healthy society)and instead get out and transform themselves into men by competing in jobs, sports and the military. Finally, unify with steadfast resolve and Turn out the Vote.
commented 2017-04-22 15:18:49 -0400 · Flag
Well, Catherine – if you were to inform yourself on the issues here, you would maybe take things more seriously! All of a sudden Muslims have MORE rights & privileges than regular, ordinary born Canadians – prayers in our schools, Christians aren’t allowed that any more, pictures on our IDs, Muslims are exempt, covering our faces – not allowed for Canadians on their IDs – special funding for lazy, contemptible people – & our military people are shunned & neglected after laying their lives on the line – Muslims can openly threaten to kill you, yet Canadians are under strict “hate-speech” laws – maybe it’s all these SPECIAL rights these contemptible Islamists that makes these stories about Muslims. If you don’t like this – maybe you ought to go live in Libya or Syria – - maybe Turkey would be more suitable to your pallet??? Normal Canadians are right to abhor Islamist barbarism!!
F**k Islam!
commented 2017-04-22 13:33:35 -0400 · Flag
The plans of Jihadi Justin are falling into place. Unfettered, unvetted illegal immigration of the Islamic kind, Islamic indoctrination in Public Schools, Enabling easy acquisition of weapons by followers of the “Religion Of Peace” , and M103 which will prevent any actions being taken against those who commit violence towards the Canadian population!
commented 2017-04-22 12:12:28 -0400 · Flag
So basically one cloaked person can register and purchase a gun and pass it around to other cloaked people.. no way to know what this person looks like.
commented 2017-04-22 12:12:28 -0400
So basically one cloaked person can register and purchase a gun and pass it around to other cloaked people.. no way to know what this person looks like.
commented 2017-04-22 07:41:56 -0400 · Flag
When was this photo exemption implemented? Who’s responsible and what reasoning is given? I’ll bet it was after October 2015!

The Niqab (veil) is a cultural choice, NOT A RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENT! The RCMP has been duped, or they’ve been ‘ordered’ to do it. Are the same exemptions permitted for passports and drivers licencse? I think not. So why this?

This might be a setup for more gun control. Someone gets a hold of one of these licenses, veils up, buys a gun and commits a crime (its only a matter of time). Then I guarantee the Liberals will come down on legal owners! When they in fact have allowed it to happen. So I ask, just who needs more ‘control’?
commented 2017-04-22 02:16:46 -0400 · Flag
Maybe Faith can actually get herself some ID where she does not show her face. And then she can go to the gun store all covered up and buy a firearm. Maybe even ask if the gun store can sell her an AK 47.