99 Replies to “A Globe & Mail Poll Goes Horribly Wrong”

  1. Marc, the Arab veil is not the same thing as a full-face snowmobile helmet or a Balaclava. No reasonable person would even attempt to claim they are.
    So you’re probably right, some logic chopping rules lawyer will try to mess with it. They aren’t reasonable, and that’s the problem we have in Canada these days. Cubicle dwelling rules lawyers have far too much power, and there are far too many of them.
    But you know, this whole veil thing is just a symptom of a larger, worse problem. Thanks to the Trudeaupian Way, which was really put in place to punish Anglo Canada, power to decide what one will or will not tolerate has moved from the individual to government officials. Here we are getting all excited because GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS are -finally- pulling their thumbs out and doing something…
    … something that 40 years ago my mum and dad and uncles and aunts would have done themselves without even thinking about it. Some weird lady shows up at the grocery store in a tent? Once or twice, no problem. All the time, then people would start suggesting to her that she loose the tent and join the party.
    I don’t view it as a good sign that we have to cheer for cubicle dwellers at long last growing a frickin’ clue. Plus I don’t like cheering for what is obviously Pur Lain racism instead of common sense “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sticking up for decent behavior.
    /.rant./

  2. “So, my view is that it originated in a tribal population in the desert. It’s a type of clothing against wind, sun and sand.”
    The Byzantines didn’t have that much sand to deal with, and as for wind and sun, no more than anyone else in the world.
    Yes, that’s right, you can blame the Byzantines for the head covering. Apparently, it was the style before the fall of the Eastern Empire. Not sure if it had to do with modesty, or was more of a fashion statement.

  3. I gotta disagree with a lot of folk, then.
    I support her freedom to wear whatever she wants. I support anyones freedom to do that, in fact.
    What I don’t support is the gyrations executed so as not to offend peoples religious beliefs/habits. This goes for face coverings on drivers licenses (or requesting one’s picture NOT be taken), segregation of public facilities, and specific laws pertaining to “hate crimes”.
    Equality and freedom. I’d hope that these two things are important in Canada.

  4. ET @ 10:42 AM, ethnic ghettos are hardly new, nor are they a product of Trudeauism, for those of you who might be chomping at the bit to blame him. Every major city in this country still has a China Town.
    Back in the early 1900s, the City of Winnipeg had ethnic enclaves exclusively populated by, among others, Ukrainians or Jews. There are still French quarters in the metropolitan area of the City of Winnipeg. St. Boniface and St. Vital come to mind.
    But all of those peoples do contribute to the economy and, for the most part, are peaceful. They appreciate and respect the freedoms Canada offers them. To a lessor extent, Edmonton also has ethnic enclaves. Heck, the prairies were settled with “ethnic enclaves”. Their descendants participate as fully as anyone else in Canada’s public, political and economic life and demonstrate an desire to put into practice our common values. And many of those people suffered very severe discrimination in the earlier years. Living in enclaves, per se, is not the problem.

  5. Louise – I agree; ethnic enclaves spring up because newcomers feel comfortable living with people with whom they can communicate and interact. That has happened with any group, whether it be the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Jewish, Russian, Tamils..
    That’s not what I meant; I meant that the enclaves, as separate domains, are preferred ways of almost permanent immigrant settlement by those who are NOT members of that particular ethnic group.
    What I blame Trudeau for is the Charter, with its specific clauses that privilege multicultural or identity group identification over the mainstream. That’s Section 15,2 and 27.

  6. So, if this comes to pass will the devout wearer of the hajib a) move to an Islamic country where they will “feel safe” or b) move to Toronto? Either works for me.

  7. So, if this comes to pass will the devout wearer of the hajib a) move to an Islamic country where they will “feel safe” or b) move to Toronto? Either works for me.

  8. There is one thing that the majority of Quebeckers do very consistently and that is stand up for their culture. They could care less about what “some in English Canada” think. They will act to protect their version of the French culture.
    Too bad that the Anglo European part of the ROC are largely too wimpy to do the same. The results of this G&M poll may just signal a strengthening of back-bone. I’m hopeful, but, not expectant.
    All we really need to point out is that most women of Islamic faith do not wear burkas or niqabs or whatever they are called. So a legal requirement in Canada that women must bare their faces for Drivers License photos, to use a credit card at the Bay, to get on an airplane or to participate effectively in a classroom, is not a fundamental violation of their religion. That’s the argument that has been used to great effect to limit the exposure of Christianity in public.

  9. Another Calgary Marc
    While I lack ET’s command of the language….much like Andy Ronney stating that because he thinks Homosexuality is wrong ….that that doesn’t make him a bad person….it means he has an opinion.
    This why the US Constitution’s first Amendment addressed freedom of speach/expression and the Second Ammendment addressed the right to keep and bear arms.
    It is not accident the framers of that Constitution placed such importance upon those concepts and lefties obsessively opose them.
    With the adoption of tinted windows on vehicles, regulations dictated that the window tint had to enable “identification of the driver, from front and side, in normal daylight…4 LUX.
    It is an offence under the Canadian Criminal Code to wear a disguise.
    In practice wearing a mask, except under very specific circumstances—such as a halloween party, is instinctively interpreted as criminal intent.
    As was already noted…wearing a balaclava in a bank is not a clever enterprise….while doing so on a motor-sled or sky hill is a never-ya-mind.
    It is worthy to note an incident on the A-stan-Pakistan border. A retreating “insurgent” raiding party was intercepted by helo-gunships and caught them doning burkas…..

  10. It all boils down to the need to subscribe to the cultural norms of the society you move to – unless the society you are moving to wants to subscribe to yours.
    And how do you know if you or they have to change if you don’t push up against the boundaries.
    What I as a member of the society being moved into need to be aware of is what the immigrants desired changes to my society are, and then I need to decide whether I am ok with that or not.
    I for one am ok with where our current societal norms are at on many things – including the need to have your face visible in public (except during a raging blizzard).

  11. Dear Badger,
    This debate has precious little to do with freedoms to wear whatever a person wants. I usually put my hair into a headscarf when I go out into the wind and rain instead of risking it with a tuque (of course, I doubt any men involved in this debate are aware of the supreme usefulness of such a covering). But, only my hair is covered. Notice how all the debates are over the face-covering veils, not the more reasonable headscarves. We can distill this down to a debate over the patch of fabric over a person’s face and nothing more.
    The debate must further boil down to whether it is acceptable to cover one’s face and still demand government services.
    The debate has nothing to do with freedoms or religious tolerance. Instead, it is simply placed as a debate over freedom or religion tolerance to make us tread very carefully, even though religious tolerance must always stop short at our laws.
    Equality and freedom? Buzz words. My grandfather and his generation killed and died for these things. They aren’t “rights”. If a right is something inalienable, and if rights (to free speech, or the right to abortions or the right to education and clean drinking water) can be taken away by the government, then they aren’t actually rights, because they are indeed alienable.
    There is no such right to wear whatever the heck you want, and your freedom to wear what you want must function within that scope of rights and law. A “right” involves what other people allow me to do, and a freedom is something that I can do myself. I need other people to maintain my rights, but I can exercise my freedoms whenever I want. I’m free to wear a gimp mask at home if I so please, but does that mean I have a right to wear one when I get bloodwork done?
    It follows that I have the God-given freedom to commit murder, and that I have the freedom to tear the curtains off of my windows and go out wearing them like a potato sack. But, once these freedoms start affecting the rights of others, we run into problems. My freedom to kill (we do have free will, after all) infringes on the right which Canada has given my victim to not be murdered. My freedom to wear a burka or niqab infringes on the the bank teller I’m dealing with, it infringes on the ability of the French-second-language teacher who must see my face to get me to pronounce words correctly (surely it is reasonable to force immigrants to learn one of two official languages), it infringes on other Canadians to know that I am indeed who I say I am when I go to vote. We have doled out the right to vote, and we’re allowed to demand to know for sure, by seeing the face of the voter, if the person who is voting is the one who we gave the vote to in the first place.
    Therefore, the freedom to cover your face is no longer a freedom when it wreaks such havoc on government-granted rights.
    (and no, I hate Mill. Mill was wrong. Don’t confuse me with Mill or any such kind of poorly planned Libertarianism!)

  12. Safety Forced, I agree with what you have said about personal freedoms impinging upon other people, as well as when they come into conflict with laws.
    With regard to face coverings, that’s a red herring. If the bank teller/cop/phlebotomist/gun shop owner needs to see one’s face to identify their customer, they should make that request. The person can then take off their motorcycle helmet, gimp mask, scarf because it’s friggin cold out, niquab, or whatever. If the person refuses to remove their face covering, the business should be within its rights to refuse to complete service, and where it pertains to questioning by police, the “customer” may then be subject to arrest and all the joys that may entail.
    Legislating against a specific type of face covering is silly.

  13. ‘Civic life’ can mean anything. As such, voting yes is an invitation for more government meddling in people’s lives. Just vote no.

  14. It has nothing to do with free will. Let us make that clear now. If a woman doesn’t wear some kind of covering, one can imagine what would happen to her (RE: Aqsa Pervez). Islamic coverings of any sort are not just trappings of chauvinist tribal culture but a message to the West: “we thumb our noses to you and your culture”. If we pride ourselves in fostering a culture that allows free expression and human rights to all, a clear message to that effect would be to ban these coverings outright.

  15. Ideally one could wear what they wanted but far too many muslims have already been admitted into Canada. The solution is to forbid any further muslim immigration but that is unlikely to happen and, unfortunately, the only way of dealing with the situation is through legislation which reinforces Canadian norms. What I’m curious about is why feminists don’t get upset over the treatment of Canadian women who visit Saudi Arabia where they are more or less confined to small areas and unable to go out in public uncovered.
    Having had to deal with tent covered women in walkin clinics, it is a most disconcerting situation. I get to see their eyes but am missing a huge amount of non-verbal information that one gets from observing facial muscle movements. They’re always accompanied by their husbands and I get the strong feeling that they don’t want them touched; just write a prescription to fix them and if they need to be touched we’ll find a female doctor. Fortunately none of these women have thus far had any serious problems but one of these days I’ll have to figure out how to do tent removal in order to examine them.

  16. Badger,
    First off I can’t believe you read that! I didn’t realize I had churned out such a behemoth until afterward!
    Though continuing on the vein of whether it is right or even possible to legislate against face coverings, I’ll point out that it’s acceptable to cover private regions, and public nudity is illegal.
    (As a fun side-note, places in the Maghreb have an odd view of what private parts are. As a belly dancer myself, I know that since about 1970s it’s been illegal to show your navel since it’s a ‘bodily orifice’. In the 50s, the dancers had much more freedom to wear whatever they wanted. Youtube “Tahia Carioca”, or “Samia Gamal” for 50s outfits and “Suheir Zaki” for 1970s outfits if you want. The dance is an interesting way to illustrate if you’re telling a person about how women’s rights have slid backwards there. It’s also illegal to have hairy armpits if you’re dancing… but that might just be for good taste’s sake!)
    Anyway, it’s not unreasonable to legislate covering at least some parts of a person’s body. So again, the question is whether it’s reasonable to request to be allowed to continually see a person’s face. I wish I knew more about law — it might be considered a ‘reasonable accommodation’ if you’ve just walked inside from one of our balmy country’s Februarys, but is it reasonable for a person to continue to keep their masks on?
    When women have their passport photos taken, we’re supposed to either not wear makeup or have only the thinnest layer of transparent powder on, because even the shading that can be accomplished can be an issue of national security.
    So, not only is it a-okay draft laws concerning body coverings, but it is fine and dandy to draft laws specifically about facial alterations in the government sphere. But, if a privately owned store requests a person to remove their face covering to get anything from a gun to a cup of coffee, do they really have that right? In the case of guns, I would say that the law is on their side because of the identification issue. But a coffee-shop owner would never have that ability.
    The level of terror associated with not seeing the person’s face, though, varies. Ordering a coffee, or in a dark alleyway — both are in the public space, right? It really does boil down into a safety issue. What did the attacker look like? I don’t know, office, they were wearing a niqab!
    There is no reason to wear a face covering unless you’re the Elephant Man and you’ll scare small children on the account of your horrid deformity. There is no religious requirement for it. It obscures identification, which is a safety issue.
    I figure if cops are allowed to request protesters to remove their masks, then the safety issue really is a factor. The only reason to wear a mask in public is if it’s Halloween or during some kind of performance where a mask is needed, in Kabuki or otherwise.
    Another side note: the only way a dancer can show her navel in Egyptian performances is if she can prove that it’s an historical representation, or a period piece, which allows her to bypass the regulation.

  17. I’m with BlackMamba!!!
    Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at March 21, 2010 9:29 AM”
    @ Kathy Shaidle, your response now begs the question, is it better to give than receive? What is your position on the matter?
    ———————————————————————-
    Now getting to a slightly more serious take on the topic, if there was a religion, whose practice included the custom of having one gender of the species walk around with a collar and lead by a leash, would it be considered more obnoxious than the practice of wearing of a burka? They are both signs of subservience, yet I think if I started a religion that had the dog collar practise, even the lefties would be after me, unless it was the men being lead of course. The only thing I don’t have on my side is the history of the practice, as the burka has with Islam. But as was said, those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. So the intolerance within Islam is just the perpetuation of one person’s view of women, carried out for centuries. The more orthodox a religion, by definition, will not recognize flaws within itself, nor adjust to the times.
    (Btw, it is problems like that within organized religion which has resulted in me becoming an atheist.)

  18. That “some in English Canada” alluded to in the poll question likely attend mosques.
    What is WITH the Globe and Mail and CTV poll question writers?

  19. “They are in the process of invading the western world in slow motion. They are doing that in order to set up an Islamic world.
    HAVE YOU NOT BEEN LISTENING TO THEM?”
    Right on the pin, Abe Froman.
    Look what infiltration has wrought on so many fronts.

  21. chutzpahticular: “What is WITH the Globe and Mail and CTV poll question writers?”
    Could they be the same people? You know the Canadian media: as incestuous as Kentucky hillbillies.

  22. just came here now for first time this w/e and do not have time to read all comments so apologies in advance for any duplication.
    I spend a lot of my time overseas and have just returned from 3.5 months in Malaysia and Australia.
    I have been travelling to Malaysia for about 20 years now. When I first went there in 1990 when the Malay (mainly Moslem) population was 60%, it was quite rare to see women wearing even the hijab (head scarf).
    20 years later after a relentless process of islamic indoctrination, the Malay population has increased to 70% (a lot of Malaysian Chinese, who create the wealth have moved to Australia and elsewhere), 100% of muslim womin wear, at least, the hijab. 1 or 2% wear the niqab, which I find very creepy (the niqab, that is).
    My question is – if it’s the woman’s choice, why weren’t they doing it 20 years ago??

  23. chutzpahticular,
    What a surprise. I picked up on Abe Froman’s point. Scrolled down here to the end and there you are noting the same.
    [Quote]
    They are in the process of invading the western world in slow motion. They are doing that in order to set up an Islamic world.
    HAVE YOU NOT BEEN LISTENING TO THEM?
    [/Quote]
    How it works:= Flow into the country and have large families of twelve or so. Eventually numbers allow you to elect MPs for your area. [enclave] like Surrey or Delta.
    Catholics, please remain calm, but this was the same practice quietly promoted in Quebec mainly during the 30s, 40s, and 50s.
    Today, concentrations of East Indians in Surrey have elected people like Diwall, Dosange and others.
    Try not to react too strongly. Just an observation of fact.
    I have seen Lebonese militant hijabbed women in online video stating they will change the voting balance in Northern Israel this way.

  24. Tony G., the godfather of al Qaeda observed in the fifties, a relatively idyllic decade, that America was “decadent”…Watch the actions of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; its leaders are patient men.

  25. ET @ 10:42 a.m.: “The reality of the baggage of tribalism, denigration of women, superstition, rejection of independent economy, expectation that ‘god’ or the govt will support them …”
    At least if ‘god’ supports them, it doesn’t involve my hard-earned tax dollars.
    Whereas, when immigrants expect government support for themselves, their two or three wives, and their many children, that’s where we need to draw the line. Far too many recent immigrants — unlike the hardworking Europeans who populated the prairies in the last century and the Chinese folks who inhabit the many Chinatowns across Canada — have all of their expenses paid via government handouts, while the rest of us hard-working stiffs pay all of our own housing, medical, and dental bills PLUS those of the new-we-know-how-to-exploit-our-visible-minority-status-immigrants.
    Government handouts come from the ROC’s pockets — originally, so that the Liberal$, who opened the immigration floodgates into Canada, could stockpile the grateful votes of the new-all-expenses-paid immigrants on the backs of the rest of us.
    And, yes, we can blame Trudeau’s leftist, anti-British, anti-Christian agenda (he wasn’t a great Catholic) for much of this multiculturalism mess Canadians are having to deal with now and his Charter of Rights and Freedoms which gives groups rights while downgrading individual rights, something that plays right into the hands of visible minority immigrants who are using our Charter “rights” in order to force their agenda on us — even though they’re the newcomers.
    I don’t think we’d get very far in their countries if we tried to get them to do things our way — so why this bending over backwards to accommodate them here, especially when it’s creating havoc?

  26. batb wrote: “Could they be the same people? You know the Canadian media: as incestuous as Kentucky hillbillies.”
    lol. Quite likely. I see gossip girl Jane Taber on CTV AND the Globe and Mail.

  27. I seldom read the Globe and Mail, but peeked into yesterday’s issue out of boredom at work. I must have been feeling masochistic because I stopped to read Jane Tabor’s column entitled “Rookie MP shooting for a royal commission on hockey violence.”
    Now, personally I wish there was less fighting and more rough and ready hockey in the NHL, but this seems a bit much. Apparently a commission made up of proles isn’t good enough for Glen Thibeault, NDP member for Sudbury. He says, and I quote: Let’s bring in health; let’s bring in law enforcement, let’s talk about some of the social trends, some of the social consequences that may be peeking into a kid’s life … such as domestic violence.
    I guess it might take a Royal Commission to bring in daily journals written by our minor hockey kids, telling that dad shouted at mom, or mom left a light on in the basement. or mom told dad to shut his big mouth … you know, stuff like that. Jane seemed very excited and supportive of a Royal Commission on hockey violence.

  28. larben: “Jane [Taber] seemed very excited and supportive of a Royal Commission on hockey violence.”
    ‘Probably ’cause people she knows will be employed by the Commission for lotsa bucks.
    The media and government bureaucracy like to keep it all in the family.

  30. Very encouraging result. Almost begins to make me think I should re-consider my perception of the average Grope & Flail reader.
    In any event, all it will take to end the discussion and take the result to 99.9999% is for a niqab clad suicide bomber to blow a load in the Eaton’s?? (can’t remember what they call it now) Centre in downtown Hogtown. Personally think this is just a matter of When? Not If?

  31. On the subject of face coverings, try walking into a bank in Vancouver with sunglasses and a ball cap. I did that and was summarily told to remove them. A burka or its derivatives are much more concealing! Gee, two posts from me on the same day…

  33. safety first….of course, I doubt any men involved in this debate are aware of the supreme usefulness of such a covering).
    Be very very afraid.As part of a ground SAR team(all men) we learned very quickly that simple nylons worn under combats provided superior cover against the cold(-40 ambient) compared to long johns.Maybe this is why our fighting forces don’t hand them out anymore?

  34. Very encouraging result. Almost begins to make me think I should re-consider my perception of the average Grope & Flail reader.
    Indeed. Those 12,117 yes votes didn’t all come from this site. You have to believe that even the most bubblebound among us (and that means Globe and Mail/CBC consumers) are beginning to get a clue.

  35. There goes my baclava, my snowmobile and motorcylce helmets! And now I can’t raise bees as a hobby! Morons!

  36. Would this islamoagitator and theofascist provocateur not have had to show her face and picture ID when entering this country?
    Just wondering how that little episode went.

  37. Now that the poll is over, has anyone else noticed that the poll is not visible in the past polls section? I guess the poll did not exactly go the way they were hoping.

  38. Yes, it’s gone, history gets rewritten once again, it didn’t happen.
    Except there’s that annoying screen capture on SDA …

  39. Yes, it’s gone, history gets rewritten once again, it didn’t happen.
    Except there’s that annoying screen capture on SDA …

  40. Da Wilfe, yes I noticed that too this morning. And we always have been at war with Oceana, haven’t we?

  41. I’ve always said I admire Quebecers for there desire for self determination. I just don’t want it on my dime.

  45. TC, I’m late to this party but have been following the slow creep of extreme Islam around the western world. As a woman who loves to drive a stick, the idea of wearing a burkha is rediculous. Within the larger context of my country and its quickly eroding culture, it’s outrageous. Across the river in Nebraska some islamics were trading in child brides for God’s sake and were offended that they would be tried under the law of the land.
    On another note, it seems interesting to me that Quebec would be the source of this ban. I thought the Quebecois were the crazed left wingers and the anglos were the voice of reason. We had some close French Canadian friends who startled me with their liberalism, and I’d been living in San Francisco for 13 years. The friendship ultimately foundered on the rocks of South Africa and the reality behind apartheid. Never let the facts get in the way of a good friendship.

  46. Yes, Safety Forced, I read your whole post. I enjoyed it.
    Really, my beef is with “who decides what’s appropriate”? Today, it’s the niquab, which isn’t a religious requirement, anyway. Tomorrow, what? Harley riders are not allowed to wear scarves over their lower faces because they need to be identified as Hells Angels, or just citizens with harleys? And the day after, as Aviator indicates, is it dark glasses and ball caps?
    No, I don’t think any of these things needs laws developed pertaining to them.
    With regard to doctors treating “tent women”, well, the “tent women” are not getting the best care they can, due to their choice. Sucks for them. (by the way, the subjugation of women by their husbands, brothers, fathers, etc. is not something I condone. I would much rather more resources be devoted to support of women in general than in making more silly laws)
    Finally, regarding immigration, I would welcome muslims and everyone else to this country because they get to be exposed to a better way of doing things. I expect that by the 2nd or 3rd generation, their children/grandchildren will be as Canadian as you or I! (speaking as a 2nd generation Canadian grandson of immigrants myself)

  47. Badger, the second and third generation islamics in France who continue to burn cars and rape Christian and secular women might argue with you.

  48. Second = Omar Karbom Canada, and the British Tube bombers 7/11, who BTW dressed in women’s full cover naquibs to escape.

  49. Mr. Mazzuchelli, you refer to “the slow creep of extreme Islam”. Is that a reference to Syed Soharwardy?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation