Barbara Kay: Let's hope Canadian courts see the true meaning of the niqab

[Mowich]

As was widely anticipated, Quebec’s Bill 62, banning face cover in the realm of public services, will be legally contested: by an individual niqab-wearing woman, supported by the CCLA and the National Council of Canadian Muslims. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is considering how his government too may “weigh in” on the challenge.

Amongst the (anglophone) chattering classes a consensus has formed that the challengers will win on constitutional grounds, in that women have a Charter right to dress as conscience dictates.

“Dress.” There’s the constant rub. I hope the court will see the difficulty here. While I make no comparison whatsoever as to motivation or purpose, to me, the niqab is no more an article of clothing than a KKK costume. Both are cause-rooted uniforms, draped over clothing, designed to embody a strong message.

The court should consider the impact of that message on fellow citizens in situations where, like in the giving and getting of public services, they cannot choose their interlocutor. The message is conveyed whether or not the costumed individual underestimates or misunderstands its full significance.

For example, to some individual southerners the Confederate flag may represent nostalgia for mint juleps on the porch at sunset, but rightly read, that flag represents America’s shameful record on slavery. Likewise, some niqabi women believe they are merely expressing “modesty,” but rightly read, the niqab represents a fundamentalist strain of Islam’s oppression of women.

That there are relatively few niqabs in Canada is neither here nor there as a matter of principle. It seems to me strange and hypocritical that we see no problem in repressing even infrequent messaging associated with racism. But, fearful of being perceived as Islamophobic, we won’t endorse action against messaging that emblemizes gender apartheid.

Elsewhere, in countries mugged by reality, as dramatically changing demographics threaten established assumptions about democracy, religion and gender equality, a more honest public discussion is taking place. In fact, while we are needlessly guilt-ridden by statistically modest rates of Islamophobia, European countries are struggling with a statistically troubling and socially consequential rate of “Occidentophobia” (hatred of the West).

I’ve lifted that neologism from a sobering report out of the WZB Berlin Social Science Center, “Religious fundamentalism and out-group hostility among Muslims and Christians in Western Europe.” Published in English in 2014, this study, conducted in 2008, compares religious fundamentalism among thousands each of Christians and Muslims of Turkish and Moroccan origin (first and second generation) who identify with their religion in six European countries – France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Belgium — with regard to hostility toward out-groups: specifically homosexuals, Jews and, respectively, Islam/the West. (According to the report, Muslims of Turkish and Moroccan origin comprise roughly two thirds of the Muslim population of Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, about 40 per cent of Muslims in Austria, one third of the Muslims in France, and ten percent of Muslims in Sweden.)

The author, Ruud Koopmans, serves today as the director of the WZB’s unit on Migration, Integration and Transnationalization. He asserts that fundamentalism includes a tripartite set of beliefs: i) “that believers should return to the eternal and unchangeable rules laid down in the past”; ii) the rules allow “only one interpretation” of the Bible/Quran; and iii) religious rules “have priority over secular laws.” In order to distinguish (merely) believing Christians (Catholics, mainline and non-mainline Protestants) and believing Muslims from fundamentalists, respondents of both religions were asked to react to the three statements. The fundamentalist numbers are strikingly disparate. While fewer than four per cent of Christians agreed with all three statements, “somewhat less than half of (Muslims) agreed with all three statements.”

Koopmans then asked his respondents, both strong believers and fundamentalists, to respond to three further questions: “I don’t want to have homosexuals as friends”; “Jews cannot be trusted”; “Muslims aim to destroy Western cultures” (for Christians); and “Western countries aim to destroy Islam” (for Muslims).

He found that nine per cent of all Christians are overtly anti-Semitic, 11 per cent reject homosexuals, and 23 per cent believe Muslims aim to destroy Western culture. But only 1.6 per cent of Christian respondents were hostile to all three groups. Amongst Muslim respondents, 57 per cent were hostile to homosexuals, 45 per cent were hostile to Jews, and 54 per cent felt the West was inimical to Islam.

Amongst fundamentalist Christians, more than 30 per cent reject homosexuals, close to 20 per cent think Jews cannot be trusted, and close to 60 per cent believe Muslims are out to destroy Western culture. But amongst Muslims with fundamentalist attitudes, “more than 70 per cent reject homosexuals as friends, think that Jews cannot be trusted, and see the West as an enemy out to destroy Islam.” (Notably, fundamentalist attitudes vary considerably by religious affiliation. “Catholics and mainline Protestants display the lowest levels of fundamentalism, non-mainstream Protestants and Alevites form the middle group with somewhat higher levels of fundamentalism, and Sunnite Muslims have by far the strongest fundamentalist attitudes,” the report notes.)

Not all fundamentalist Muslim women wear niqabs, but all who wear niqabs signal support for fundamentalism. Bill 62 may not change their minds, but it sends the important message — one that may resonate with the daughters of Quebec’s niqab-wearing women — that pluralism, gender equality and social reciprocity are pillars of our culture’s “core identity” (yes, prime minister, we do have one).

The higher value of “social cohesion” has twice guided rulings against challenges to niqab bans by the European Court of Human Rights, which noted that the religious duty for women to cover was “hard to reconcile” with the principle of gender equality. Let us hope that our judiciary agrees and rules accordingly.

Barbara Kay: Let’s hope Canadian courts see the true meaning of the niqab | National Post

 

[justlooking]

Notwithstanding.

I'm sure the courts will find Bill 62 unconstitutional.
The Constitution was written under the assumption that all citizens agreed with the fundamental principles of it,
and that no one group was actively trying to segregate themselves into a parallel society.

If Tater Tot has any brains, he will stay the hell out of this one.

 

[spilledthebeer]

Notwithstanding.

I'm sure the courts will find Bill 62 unconstitutional.
The Constitution was written under the assumption that all citizens agreed with the fundamental principles of it,
and that no one group was actively trying to segregate themselves into a parallel society.

If Tater Tot has any brains, he will stay the hell out of this one.

Notwithstanding indeed! Our idiot Boy Justin might just lose the next election on public hostility to this niqab/ illegal immigration thing! Especially as Quebec has BOTH that "not withstanding clause AND much greater control over their immigration affairs than other provinces!


Here is an older article that illustrates the dilemma of European politicians in the wake of December 2016 outrages perpetrated by people alleged to be Muslims. It reveals the the conflicting pressures on politicians being generated on one side- from voters worried about Muslim terror and crime- and other the other side simply from politician desire to buy votes and cling to power. Our political leaders are craven fence sitters with NO personal morality- they desire only power and gravy- with NO responsibility! The article contains some comments of my own in brackets):

Europe is planning to deport hundreds of thousands of Muslims (EU)

In a recent reversal, Sweden now says it will deport half of its 160,000 migrants, Finland plans to deport two-thirds of its 32,000 migrants and Germany intends to deport all migrants who arrived under false pretenses -- a number that could total many hundreds of thousands -- as well as all migrants from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, which Germany now deems "safe" countries because they are not at war.

(Considering that Muslim rapists streamed their attack on a Swedish women live on the internet, one has to wonder at the restraint of Swedes in not dumping ALL Muslim immigrants!)

Most countries in Europe, in fact, are now cracking down on migrants from Muslim countries, raising the possibility of a modern-day expulsion that rivals that of the 16th and 17th centuries, when Spain, to its shame, not only ethnically cleansed its territories of all Muslims but also of their descendants who had converted to Christianity.

(Too bad the crack down is half hearted as craven politicians waver over the morality of singling out Muslims as trouble makers- even as British cops and immigration officials are questioned as to WHY they ignored Italian police warnings about the Manchester Bomber traveling to Britain! A cynic must view politicians as hypocrites who will soon slacken their diligence and loosen their guard against Muslims!)

The sea change in attitude among Europe's political leadership -- mere weeks ago, many of them insisted that they must open their doors even wider on humanitarian grounds -- followed mass sexual assaults in European cities on New Year's Eve. Although government officials and the mainstream press initially tried to cover up the extent of the wrong-doing -- an estimated 1,000 Muslims in Cologne alone participated in "Taharrush," a practice of encircling, groping and sometimes raping women -- the extent of the assaults led to a fire-storm of outrage on social media that forced both the mainstream media and the politicians to acknowledge the problems and reverse course.

(Oh that`s nice- they mistreat women so often they have a special Arabic name for it!)

The reversals were a long time coming, given what Europeans have endured in recent years from the uncontrolled influx of more than a million migrants, most of them Muslim men with little appreciation of Western values. Sexual assaults aside -- rapes in many European countries are disproportionately attributed by law enforcement and NGOs to Muslims -- crime by migrants is rampant. Hamburg police reports 20,000 purse-snatches a year, 90 per cent of them by males in their 20s from North Africa or the Balkans. In 2014, even before the migrant stampede accelerated, 38,000 asylum seekers had been accused of committing crimes.

(One has to question the crime numbers as LIE-beral minded politicians around the world consider it racist to catalogue the ethnic origins of criminals so ethnic crime may be substantially under -reported!)

We have been coming perilously close to repeating Europe's errors.
With Europeans increasingly stating that they don't recognize their own countries anymore, and don't feel safe in it, politicians now face a furious backlash. Citizens are protesting in the streets and through social media. Anti-immigrant political parties are on the rise and often lead in the polls. Forty per cent of Germans now demand the resignation of once-popular German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Opposition to the governments' open-immigration policies doesn't manifest itself only through peaceful outlets. Mob justice is also increasing with hooded nativists intimidating and attacking migrants. With disrespect for the rule of law increasing across the board, societal breakdown has become thinkable, all a consequence of a soft-headed if soft-hearted desire to help desperate refugees.

It's easy to see things getting much worse before they get much better. For one thing, it won't be easy to identify which migrants are genuine, and are entitled to refugee status, and which have taken advantage of the chaos at the borders merely to partake of Europe's welfare benefits. German media, for example, reports that the whereabouts of half of those seeking asylum are unknown while hundreds of thousands of others, according to the German government, entered the country surreptitiously, circumventing any background checks.

Even when found, deporting migrants will be difficult, since those from Bangladesh, Pakistan, Tunisia, Morocco and other countries that do not qualify for refugee status routinely destroy their passports and other identifying documents, to prevent their deportation from Europe, while others purchase counterfeit Syrian documents to feign their bona fides. The process of finding, then justifying the deportation of illegals will be laborious and time-consuming, requiring many years during which resentments can't help but fester.

(And all these laborious and time consuming security issues will be dumped onto already debt damaged economies around the western world! With each failure to identify and deport radical Muslims in a hurry giving them time to plan their next attack!)

Many migrants won't take kindly to being deported, not least because home-grown activists will rise to their defense and because, as intelligence agencies report, the ranks of the migrants have been seeded by jihadists. Defiance by migrants, including rioting, is already common. As their defiance increases, so too will the backlash by the public, leading to both vigilantism and demands for curbs on immigration, changing the character of Western democracies. The free movement of peoples has begun to be restricted -- for the first time since 1952, for example, Scandinavians require identification when crossing from Denmark to Sweden, the upshot of regulations introduced last month to stem illegal migrants.

(We Cdns are facing troubled along our borders as Our idiot Boy Justin brings in a horde of Muslims while at the same time our most important trading partner-United States- grows ever LESS tolerant of our slack security! We are already facing economic damage to our softwood lumber and dairy industry because of our sloppy security- with Yankee law makers seeking ways to “bring jobs back to America” by CLOSING the borders! Why give them a Muslim terrorist excuse to hurt us economically?)

The restrictions on movement can only deepen. Following the terror attacks in Paris, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security gave notice to European nations that visas may be required to enter the U.S. in future if better controls aren't put in place, and last week the U.S. Senate in homeland security hearings raised questions about Canada's plan to absorb 25,000 refugees. Because attacks on Western soil by jihadists posing as migrants are all but inevitable, more restrictions compounding today's baggage checks and privacy intrusions are also all-but inevitable.

Canada has until recently entirely avoided the immigration turmoil, let alone civilizational threats, afflicting much of the West. Because we haven't yet recklessly accepted untoward levels of migrants, we are not under pressure to recklessly deport untoward levels of migrants, as is occurring in the liberal democracies of Europe. Yet we have been coming perilously close to repeating Europe's errors. During the last federal election campaign, a mass hysteria over the plight of migrants, and the perception that Canada was failing to be as welcoming to them as European nations, contributed to the election of Justin Trudeau, who came to office on a vow to rewrite immigration procedures in order to rush in 25,000 Syrian refugees by Christmas. When the Christmas target wasn't met, an embarrassed government decided to double down by raising the number of Syrian migrants to 50,000 by the end of this year, an impetuous decision that seems driven by the same mix of political and humanitarian impulses that blindly led so many European countries to grief.

(LIE-berals are blindly seeking to buy votes so they can cling to power and Muslims are willing sellers of their votes to LIE-berals! LIE-berals can be counted on to make us pay any price so THEY can cling to power!)

(One has only to look at the $10 million dollar award to terror poster boy Omar Khadr to see LIE-beral vote buying in action. Or look at the ongoing legal actions around the Muslim woman who attacked Cdnt Tire customers in Toronto- she has told a LIE-beral judge that she hates Canada and wants to give up Cdn citizenship and go back to camel country and is willing to plead guilty to all charges in exchange for a speedy trial and the judge has told her not to be so hasty! She has also told the judge she hates Cdns and will attack us again if given the chance so the judge let her out on bail!)

 

[Johnnny]

Suppourt me for Moderator and ill ban spilledthebeer...

 

[Hoof Hearted]

spilledthebeer usually makes some really good points...but his verbosity turns most people off. Brevity is the soul of wit doncha know.

 

[Hoid]

SO obviously illegal.

If Alberta had put this law in there would be widespread charges of racism. Quebec, as usual, is give a free ride because it is somehow their heritage to be a bunch of rednecks.

 

[taxslave]

You mean for once Quebec is right about something.

 

[justlooking]

Suppourt me for Moderator and ill ban spilledthebeer...

Whatever support I may have had for you being moderator just evaporated.
Mods mod, not censor.

SO obviously illegal.
If Alberta had put this law in there would be widespread charges of racism. Quebec, as usual, is give a free ride because it is somehow their heritage to be a bunch of rednecks.

If I didn't know better, I would swear there is a hint a of jealousy in there somewhere.

You mean for once Quebec is right about something.

Indeed.

 

[Jinentonix]

SO obviously illegal.

Actually it's not. A simple majority vote in any province or territory can lead to the temporary suspension of various human and civil rights in said province or territory, including religious rights. The courts have no power to overrule that result unless the result would cause serious harm to a particular group or society in general.
In fact, one could also argue that permitting the wearing of such clothing constitutes religious and/or sexual discrimination.
If everyone else who enters say, a variety store, bank or govt office, court room, is required to uncover their faces or heads (ie: lower the hoods on their hoodies) except a female muslim, that's discrimination based on religion and gender.

Funfact: Trudeau Sr. put in the notwithstanding clause to "appease" Quebec, although any province or territory can use it. It was the only way to get Quebec on board with the new Constitution. Quebec is simply going to use that provision, if they already aren't, and there's really f*ck all the courts can do about it. And why? Because to put it simply, any ruling that goes against the result of a majority vote in a notwithstanding case could easily be regarded as unconstitutional.

 

[spilledthebeer]

Actually it's not. A simple majority vote in any province or territory can lead to the temporary suspension of various human and civil rights in said province or territory, including religious rights. The courts have no power to overrule that result unless the result would cause serious harm to a particular group or society in general.
In fact, one could also argue that permitting the wearing of such clothing constitutes religious and/or sexual discrimination.
If everyone else who enters say, a variety store, bank or govt office, court room, is required to uncover their faces or heads (ie: lower the hoods on their hoodies) except a female muslim, that's discrimination based on religion and gender.

Funfact: Trudeau Sr. put in the notwithstanding clause to "appease" Quebec, although any province or territory can use it. It was the only way to get Quebec on board with the new Constitution. Quebec is simply going to use that provision, if they already aren't, and there's really f*ck all the courts can do about it. And why? Because to put it simply, any ruling that goes against the result of a majority vote in a notwithstanding case could easily be regarded as unconstitutional.

How SAD! LIE-berals have No response to all the critical analysis of their many failed policies EXCEPT CENSORSHIP!

Consider:

Here is an older article illustrating the politically correct mess LIE-berals are forcing on us for their own selfish reasons-with some comments of my own in brackets):

Anti-Shariah petition emerges alongside M-103 debate

By Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network. First posted: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 08:38 PM EDT | Updated: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 09:56 AM EDT

“We are here in the words business. We should not therefore shrug about the meanings of words,” Conservative MP Garnett Genuis said during Tuesday's debate. “Why not simply define Islamophobia?” POSTMEDIA NETWORK FILES.

(YES! WHY NOT simply define “Islamophobia”? LIE-beral policy makers are entirely at odds with ordinary Cdns as illustrated by the overwhelming support Cdns give to a values test for immigrants. There is also increasing fear that LIE-berals plan to use Islamophobia issues to silence any public debate on various LIE-beral policies such as LIE-beral changes to immigration law that lets in many more people with reduced skills, lesser language abilities and reduced capacity to succeed in our overly indebted economy-with its shortage of decent jobs and high living costs.)

(LIE-berals are also systematically ignoring increasing proof that Canada will eventually receive its share of bloody Muslim terror attacks as LIE-beral immigration changes allow in ever more unsuitable people. Poverty and inability to assimilate; with attendant resentment seems to be a major influence on those who turn radical and LIE-beral style Cdn economy seems tailor made to produce angry, unemployed Muslim radicals- and Black radical allies! )

(Cdns are also increasingly concerned that the LIE-beral M-103 debacle is a trial balloon for something much bigger and more ominous.)

An anti-Shariah law petition is gaining votes on the Canadian government’s e-petition website at the same time as an anti-Islamophobia motion faces a vote in the House of Commons.

Liberal MP Iqra Khalid had the final say Tuesday evening as her controversial motion faced its second hour of debate.

“M103 is not an attempt to create Shariah law,” Khalid said as she brought up what she labelled “outrageous claims” made by critics of the motion.

(No- I say she is just gauging the public mood and seeing how far she can push us TOWARDS Sharia Law by using Islamophobia to SILENCE LIE-beral critics!)

The motion calls for a study to look at tackling racism and discrimination but has generated concern, and even multi-faith protests across the country, for singling out the phrase Islamophobia. As I’ve written in several columns, the vague phrase is used as a tool in Muslim majority countries to justify punishing people for blasphemy.

(And how odd that Our idiot Boy Justin defends Muslim values even though they contradict and denigrate his own Catholic Faith and insists that he is a feminist and is determined to raise up women. Yet the idiot Boy ignores the second class treatment of Cdn Muslim women in their daily life and ignores the explicit Muslim policies- practiced around the world and even here in Canada that forbid a wife or daughter to leave the house without the permission of hubby or father! In addition Our idiot feminist Boy refuses to condemn the Muslim practice of female genital mutilation as a barbaric practice! Its all okay with him just so long as he gets the votes! Power trumps principle!)

“We are here in the words business. We should not therefore shrug about the meanings of words,” Conservative MP Garnett Genuis said during the debate. “Why not simply define Islamophobia?”

(Clearly LIE-berals will not define their meaning of the word as it would reduce their ability to smear those whom LIE-berals deem “Islamophobes”.TO define the term will limit the ability of Human Rights kangaroo courts to punish Cdns for being Islamophobic once LIE-beral M 103 reverse bigotry is put into law!)

The motion will be voted on by MPs Thursday. If approved - and it most definitely will be - the heritage committee will have 240 days to complete a study that offers recommendations.

(IN other words LIE-berals ARE preparing to expand M 103 and turn it into a legal hammer against their opponents just as soon as they can calculate how far they can go without triggering a HUGE opposition! LIE-berals do not want us looking over their shoulders and studying their plans-secrecy in the LIE-beral Star Chamber is much preferred by budding dictators such as Our idiot Boy Justin as he works to destroy what his father called Cdn Imperialism!)

Meanwhile, thousands of Canadians are signing petition e-909 on the government’s petitions website. It reads like a direct response to certain concerns about M-103, calling upon the government to propose an amendment to the Constitution Act “stating that Shariah Law or separate Shariah family courts will never have a place in the Canadian Justice System”.

(And WHY NOT demand that LIE-berals publicly shun Sharia Law? Should we assume LIE-berals WILL some day impose Sharia Law on us- for the good of the LIE-beral party with its habit of BUYING Muslim voters? And why are LIE-berals not afraid of Sharia Law? After all, Our idiot Boy Justin is a self professed feminist! Is he not worried about Muslim views of women as inferior? Or should we assume that LIE-berals will act like Saudi Sheiks and simply IGNORE Sharia
Law by flying off ti United States when they want to party?)

(It is ironic that when Muslims approached Ontari-owe premier Dalton McGinty about instituting separate Sharia Law Courts for Muslims in Ontari-owe; one of the loudest protest groups were Muslim women! They much preferred our Cdn civil rights and constitution! And surely the average white Cdn woman would feel the same way? Whan a Cdn Muslim woman votes- does her hubby look over her shoulder to ensure she marks the ballot `properly` for a LIE-beral? Or can she sneak in her OWN opinion at the private ballot box?)

“While I share the principle that Shariah law has no place in Canada, I believe that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would rule that any application of Sharia Law through the Canadian justice system to be fundamentally unconstitutional,” Conservative MP James Bezan, who sponsored the petition, says in an email to the Sun. “Multiple court cases have ruled that Canadian law is to be never overruled for any other set of rules or laws.”

(Implementation of Sharia Law would require dismantling about half our constitution related to family law and women`s rights!)

Any Canadian looking to post an e-petition needs an MP to first sponsor it and e-909 was drafted by one of Bezan’s constituents.

While most of the over 250 petitions currently online have vote tallies ranging in the several hundreds to couple thousand, e-909 sits at 14,000 votes.

But it has a long way to go to reach the 70,000 that e-411 received, the petition about Islamophobia that served as a partial inspiration for Khalid’s motion.

(Frankly its my opinion that many Cdns do not wish to sign any anti Islamophobia petition for the simple reason that too much personal information is DEMANDED before one may register an opinion! Cdns are fearful of being too easily identified if they register their opinion in such a public way. One has only to look at the LIE-beral Mydemocracy web site where Cdns were invited to comment on the LIE-beral electoral reform/ vote rigging crap they were pushing on us- to aid LIE-berals in the next election. The information demanded was detailed enough that a LIE-beral could literally work through a town or city and know- street by street who supported their crap or not -and could later- if they felt like it- use that information in a vindictive way when organizing local hospital services and etc!)

(Cdns want to vote ANONYMOUSLY so they need not fear vandals creeping in the night to attack and punish them for their views! Nor do they want to be attacked and harassed by Human Rights Kangaroo Court officials with too much time and money on their hands- and working to small a sense of justice and honest play! We fear the bigotry and vengeance of those who disagree with us-and LIE-berals are feeding into this! Its why their petition related to electoral reform was so widely scorned-to put out an opinion on a contentious subject is to expose yourself to retaliation from radicals-and the LIE-berals demanded HUGE amounts of personal information on their “mydeomocracy” web site and now they are using the same bigotry for Islamophobia petitions!)

(Its not our democracy on display-rather it is LIE-beral bigotry and hypocrisy on display-with those who argue to much or too often exposed to potentially illegal levels of retaliation!)