A Globe & Mail Poll Goes Horribly Wrong

That poll must be hitting a sore spot, as it has been weighted to the "Yes" side all day. Seems like the dipper and lib grunts do not always obey directives from above.

Have added my vote to the 'right' side. Thanx for the chance.

The article on this topic which appeared in the Globe had a lot of comments calling them on this attempt to create a division between "tolerant" English Canada and hardline Quebec--a division of opinion which obviously does not exist.

The pc crowd cannot lose with this one. If the No's win, then Quebec is racist and we all need more and more powerful HRC.
If the yes side wins, then all Canada is racist and we need more and more powerful HRC.

I agree with Rita. And the poll question could've ended simply ended with a question mark after civic life. The addition to it is irrelevant, considering that Quebec is already referenced at the beginning. The second part of it is designed to play on other preconceived biases, maybe anger that Quebec gets special treatment in confederation. Perhaps the Globe's failed attempt to bolster the "No" votes. They could've have been too confident going in.

Sorry, "couldn't" have been too confident going in. Blame it on the booze. ;-)

I don't care what people wear or do not wear from the neck down.

Covering of the face can be outlawed in Canada with my glad and profound support.

Vandals that were breaking store windows in the first week of the Olympics in Vancouver were wearing black face coverings, [balaclavas?]. Police and street video are at a loss.

Government clerks, elections overseers, druggists, airport security and many others can not do their job when the face is hidden.

The face covering ban has been adopted in parts of Europe. Can't wait for it to happen here.

Why do they have to wear it? Are they all seductresses or are we supposed to be so stunned by their beauty that we will lose control of our passions? To tell the truth, most of them do little for me personally. A pool in Surrey used to ban men when they went swimming and covered the windows with kraft paper. I told the pool people that I had no interest at looking at their hairy legged women, and that I was not particularly proud of my beer gut, but hey, they're not going to close the pool for my vanity.

Not only should we do what Quebec has done, but we need to let would be Muslim immigrants know in no uncertain terms that this woman (among other groups) hating ideology is not welcome here. We all know this is purely an expression of political Islamism.

larben: "Why do they have to wear it?"

Because men in the Arab world are not required to be responsible for their own behavior. Their failure to keep a lid on their own lust is entirely a woman's doing.

Tony G., I agree.

Considering this is a religion and culture that sees fit to carve women's clits off with a rusty butter knife and cauterize the lips closed all in order to maintain the woman's "purity" for her husband, wearing a veil sounds like the least of their problems. IMHO ALL immigrants should have no doubts that they adopt the Canadian way of life or they can leave. We have freedoms here they have never had and will not allow their women to have. Why even come to Canada if they want to maintain their subjugation of women?
On another note who the hell wants to be driving around when these women are driving right beside you (or AT you) and having to stare out a slit of bug netting in order to drive? Safety? Are they kidding?

My favourite article in today's Mope and Wail: Oral Sex Leads to Throat Cancer.

Killjoys.

We all gotta die of something.

The main reason for the Burka and face covering seems to escape everyone!!!!

It is so that men can wear it and move about freely transporting arms and explosives, while hiding from those who are trying to catch the criminal terrorists!!! Sodamn Insane was caught dressed in one.

Why do you think that the western forces in Afghanistan can't stop the terrorist bombings? This criminal system was set up 1400 years ago and every culture that has played by the rules trying to fight it has lost!!!

BAN THE BURKA!!!!

This poll tells me people are scared, but are afraid to say of whom? Even a little gesture against this would be self styled tsunami. Ignites a majority opinion towards even a feeble step to stem the social suicide of Canada's Democracy.
We have been buffaloed into not even mentioning our would be Conquerers or their beliefs. Least we end up in a roo' court. Danced on the head by our own Polity. While daily we see our own values decay through big government statism. The people perish without a vision. Whats this Nations? A patch work of nationalized multicultural nation states like the Natives?
JMO

Revnant Dream, you've hit the essential point: too many credulous Canadians are cowed into believing that a particular, insisted-upon narrative - a dated and very time-bound one, at this point - that has been insistently floated by the 'keepers' of Canadian identity is an accurate reflection of the views of Canadians in some universal sense, when in fact this "everybody knows" narrative is a bastardized, highly-partisan and guileful manipulation of people's fundamental decency.

If I walk into a bank wearing a balaclava, people will quite justifiably get nervous. Why? Might there be fundamental, universal and non-politicized reasons for that reaction?

Even if I'm not armed, and not intending to rob the bank, might there be something about my covered face - the social gesture itself - that properly makes people understand that something is wrong?

Looks like the globe and mail is going to have to do another story about all of Canada being intolerant to the intolerance of islam and its whacked out culture.

Sorry guys but I was in Vancouver for the olympics and have had my fill of officialdom. The problem wasn't with the cops who if I may say so, at least the Van City constables was great. However everyone else was drunk with power. Lord what a mess and guess who it was directed at. Well for the most part taxpayers. Hell I even had some burueacrat laugh at me for suggesting something so crass as decency and respect to those paying the bill, and mind you not me personally. Maybe critical thinking when dealing those folks actually paying for that dog and pony show known as the olympics would have been in order but not a chance.

Face covering cannot be allowed anywhere in our country. As usual, Quebec is leading the way.
How can anyone deal with a person with no face? How can they be identified? Someone with a face covering driving a car for instance, how would they be identified as the person who holds the license?

Who's intolerant here?

It's down to a security risk as well, no one can know what's under these mobile tents. It's pure insanity in this 21st century AD.

Thanks to PET's Multiculture and Charter of Rights, the magnets that have brought us to this point, intended or not.

If one can't walk down the street with the KK outfit on one shouldn't be allowed to wear a Burka in the public domain. Both are symbols of medieval cultural beliefs, one is a sign of racism and hate and the other is the Universial Sign of the sexual/slave bondage of women in Muslim nations. I hate the Burka, it's an symbol of Islmaic supremacism tarted up as a tenet of Islam.

I am shocked, appalled and devestated! I didn't get a Hat Tip for this story despite my posting about it in yesterday's Reader Tips!! (6.55AM)

Off to the CHRC with this one.I feel demeaned and excluded.

"Tolerance" for an intolerable practice, the wearing of the niqab, is the surrender-monkey position our lib-leftard overlords have demanded of us.

Well, enough, already.

Those of us who, for years, could see the writing on the wall and where this train was headed and have been objecting to their tolerant (sic), diverse (sic), multicultural (sic) vision of Canada have been depicted as narrow and bigoted neanderthals.

'Looks like we were right -- and that far from being neanderthals, we were on the watchtowers from where we could see what was coming our way. Of course, the Left hates us.

There's no way that Canadians should be asked to be "tolerant" about face coverings in public. No one, whatever their "culture" or "religion," should be exempt from transparency in the public square. If certain Muslims insist that their women's faces be covered, because THEY can't control their lustful impulses, they shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to Canada and we, certainly, shouldn't be asked to change our way of doing things to accommodate them.

Canada should have a law which says that NO ONE, male or female, wanders our streets or public places with their faces covered. 'No more bending over backwards to protect thinking from the dark ages under the guise of "multiculturalism."

And, please allow me to scratch the surface of this barbarous nonsense with a reminder of what the alliance of the Canadian Left and Islam is actually all about: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The enemy of both? Judeo-Christian values which are the foundation of all the freedoms we in the West have enjoyed for many centuries -- and which, BTW, have largely been excluded in Canada's official multiculturalism agenda. Go to any public school: You'll see Gaia honoured, Kwanza, Chinese New Year, etc., but no Ash Wednesday, Good Friday or Easter acknowledgment -- except, ironically, the four-day holiday (holy day). Remember, too, that it was Christian Europe (sadly, much depleted -- look at the state Europe's in today) that kept Islam from spreading.

EBD @ 3:56, of course you are right. We've all seen programs on TV or read articles about face recognition, even in very young infants. It is hardwired into the core of our sensory perception.

I think there are many questions about the burqa, the 'tent-dress' and the niqab, the face veil.

To assert that they are ordered by religious edict is ungrounded; there's no evidence of that in the Quran. Of course, that also brings up another issue, which is that Islam is less a religion than a societal and political ideology of the tribal 7th c.

So, if it's cultural, then one has to ask why it developed and its societal function.

To assert that it's psychological, i.e., grounded in a belief that all men are sexual fiends and the sight of any female...etc..is untenable for a people claiming to have a superior moral and conceptual mode of life.

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.
Given this material need, we then move on to another mode of behaviour in a tribal society in the desert - the warrior class of young men.

All tribal societies, particularly those with an economy based in migratory pastoralism, as were the people who moved into Islam in the 7th c, deal with their young unmarried men by moving them into a phase of warriors. This phase involves them patrolling the used and unused territory to maintain tribal control over the land base.

It keeps them away from the married women, up to a point, for the 'game' is for these men to sneak into the camps for 'illicit meetings'. Keeping the women veiled except within the protection of her husband and brothers, removes those women from this group.

This is a societal form of behaviour and dress adopted for a 7th c mode of tribal life. Abandoned as the economy changed, but since the last century, redeveloped as Islam fought to reject modernization, industrialism, democracy and to retain the 'pure tribalism'.

Now, both the burqa and niqab have moved out of their original material and societal origins and are now used to confine women to the family, maintain male dominance in the society and isolate the wearer from integration in the new society.

Therefore, one has to ask - why immigrate if you openly declare that you reject the basic societal modes of belief and behaviour of the new society?

OT. On the Mope and Fail's website there is (was) and article by Ian Brown (CBCer at one time) which basically scolds and ridicules any Canadian who doesn't worship Iggy and who supports Stephen Harper. I've been trying to post a comment, but it just won't work. Has anyone else here registered in order to comment on the Mope and Fail's articles and, if so, have you had problems?

I'm with BlackMamba!!!

From what I remember of my religious studies course, through the Qur’an and the Hadiths Islamic women are mandated to dress modestly in public. Specific details of what modest dress are not given, and it is purposefully left open to interpretation so that it can be adapted in a wide variety of situations; as one can imagine, modest dress for someone going grocery shopping is significantly different than modest dress for someone going swimming.

The burqa and niqab are interpretations of this mandate and are often forced onto women. While I fully support a new immigrant wearing what they’re accustomed to, wearing a face-veil when taking a language course is like wearing army boots while taking a swimming lesson; and removing the veil to allow your teacher to see your face to instruct you in proper pronunciation is not dressing immodestly.

Or to put it another way ...

I fully support the right for an educator or employer to be able to specify necessary dress requirements (within reason) and if the student or employee is unwilling or unable to meet these dress requirements they can go elsewhere.

It's now up to 80%, which the Globe will interpret as "a divided nation" implying a close vote.

See George Jonas' article in the Saturday National Post, "Voltaire's Ghost comes to Quebec" which deals with this very issue. In my mind it boils down to what Preston Manning alluded to all those years ago, namely that at a certain point a society/country has to define who it is and what it stands for. The Canada most of us have known and loved has been a secularized version of a culturally Judeo-Christian parliamentary democracy. And no, I don't have to accommodate the burqa or the niqab. I don't have to accommodate the niqab any more than I have to accommodate the nazis or the communists or the Ku Klux Klan or female circumcision or "honour" murders or child brides or any number of primitive, barbaric, tribal behaviours from any number of busted-arse countries that litter this planet and from which human beings are constantly fleeing. Countries have borders for a reason. The borders define not only geographic lines of demarcation, but legal, governmental and cultural ones as well.

For years there was a law on the books, which made it illegal to cover one's face in public. That's a good law. Because in order to engage in a civil society there needs be an element of accountability and responsibility for one's actions. A cornerstone of accountability is the ability to be identified and human beings are neurologically hard wired to recognize faces. To hide behind the anonymity of a face covering is to take special status in more ways than one. It's an abrogation of personal responsibility. It's the first thing anarchists do before they vandalize property or throw fire bombs.

And no, I don't have to ban all public display of religious symbols in order to ban the burqa.

I keep waiting for someone to point out the most hideous part of this controversy, but I guess that's expecting way to much from the modern day feminists. So here, I'll point it out, as a man with a young daughter:

Burqa clad women wear their portable tent prisions because they (self believe and/or cultural belief forced/indoctrinated on them by family; ie. read elder male family/relatives) believe that this is the MODEST thing to do in Islam. Our feminists twist themselves into knots to say that this is personal advocacy/activism well within an individual's rights even if the larger society doesn't like it.

BUT the corollary is that all other (non-mulsim sharia compliant) females that are not encased out of view of males are in fact sluts and whores. And as the Rape Imam in Austrialia pointed out such females are "uncovered meat" and are themselves to blamed if something 'bad' were to happen to them.

So let me ask all the female readers on this blog (I'm assuming virutally all here are currently free from the cotton bondage) how do you like being viewed by the Muslim community as UNMODEST; ie. read 'whores and sluts' who deserve to be raped? 'Cause when you stand beside a burqa clad submissive on the street, that is exactly the thought being screamed out to all around you; expecially muslim men.

You don't need to worry about their headress impairing the woman's ability to drive. That's just stupid.

After all, every devout person knows that according to the laws Mohammed, women are not permitted to drive. Problem solved.

I personally am totally opposed to women wearing black formless clothing from head to toe. I just about ran over a woman begging on the side of the road a couple of months ago in Saudi Arabia, thinking she was a bag of garbage.

Upon reflection, I realize that my error in judgement was to think that the Saudi's cared enough to actually put their garbage in a bag.

Black Mamba...I like your attitude!

Maybe people are starting to wake up to the fact that as we accommodate, the immigrants have to adapt less to our ways. You chose our culture. We did not recruit you to change ours to what you left behind.

Peppermint Panda,

I thought it was only the wives of Mohammad who were told specifically to cover themselves, even though all women are supposed to dress modestly? Ahh oh well, I haven't read the book, so I don't know. I'll note that lots of people who hate Jews and Christians never read our books, either, and misinterpret wildly.

Hah! I bet if I went out and killed some gay people or people wearing cotton/poly blends, I wouldn't be treated so kindly in court.

ET @ 9:08: "Therefore, one has to ask - why immigrate if you openly declare that you reject the basic societal modes of belief and behaviour of the new society?"

Ummmm. Aren't we telling them via the vehicle of the Multi-Culti cult that we do accept any and all non-Western aberrations?

Louise @ 9:17, I commented on an article in the Globe this morning, but, strangely, had to re-enter my I.D. and Pswd.

batb @ 8:51, absolutely correct and add to that the infiltration by the radical left into the educational system.

Thanks, DrD, for putting a defence of our "culturally Judeo-Christian parliamentary democracy" so succinctly.

Unfortunately, what the secular version has done, is give us a thin veneer, via Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, of the democratic freedoms we in Canada once enjoyed.

Trudeau's Charter has given us untrammeled rights without responsibilities and freedoms without accountabilty.

"Therefore, one has to ask - why immigrate if you openly declare that you reject the basic societal modes of belief and behaviour of the new society?"

I can answer that question. 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?

Louise - yes, multiculturalism (cult) does indeed tell 'them' that we accept 'them' as Others.

However, in practice this means as long as they settle somewhere else and not in 'my' neighbourhood. So we get ghetto-enclaves, and we also get such immigration only in the largest cities. Quebec, which alone of the provinces, controls its own immigration, has the smallest ratio of 'visible minorities' in the country, and over 90% of them are in Montreal.

This view of multiculturalism is, as noted on this blog, viewed by many Canadians as simply about exotic foods and folk pavilions. The reality of the baggage of tribalism, denigration of women, superstition, rejection of independent economy, expectation that 'god' or the govt will support them, and their own hatred of 'other peoples' that they bring with them..is utterly ignored by our Liberal Latte Lites.

Multiculturalism is an ignorant and harmful policy.

I can't believe it, I agree with Quebec....does anything looks so stupid as a woman wearing this costume....Most women in the Arab/Muslim world do not wear this clown suit....it is not about Arab men lusting over them if they see their face, it's about the control of women by Muslim men and the intimiadation of Western socity.

Way to go Quebec....Globe and Mail get a life...you are out of step with English Canadians.

Looks like the Grope & Flail is prominently posting poll results their editorial board would describe as racist. They need to turn in their readers to the HRCs, write a bunch of mea culpa editorials, and maybe don sackcloth and ashes as a gesture of solidarity.

It is all about trust and our society is based upon trust. The Muslim society is not.

There has been a lot of reported research recently that suggests that our culture developed as it did because certain small groups that were culturally related existed in several different political societies and trusted each other. This led to the rise of lending and borrowing for economic development. The trust between groups also led to the rise of the rule of law – which was essentially enforcing the cultural norm within the larger group of like minded folks. We trusted the rest of the members of our society enough to let them lead us – but not without having to prove that by being re-elected after a period of time. Our society is based on openness and accountability.

We trust certain the rest of our social group to abide by certain behaviours. They will drive on the designated side of the street. They will not steal from us. They will not abuse other members of our society. Generally we set rules to regulate our behaviour within the society and where those rules are broken, society takes steps to correct and rehabilitate the transgressor. Those people who would cover their faces are able to break our rules and remain anonymous. They cannot be corrected or rehabilitated. And when a subgroup (tribe), removes some of its members from the responsibility of accountability, the downward slide begins. Our open society cannot survive a regression to the tribalism and oppression contained within the philosophy of the naqib.

"Some in English Canada". Some meaning maybe a dozen people? Hahaha!

In a leftwards-veering paper, no less.

Meaning, one might now surmise, that hiding one's face isn't a Canadian Value, eh...

And... Is it ok for folks to come here from elsewhere and tell us to change our ways because they don't like our ways? I mean, we wouldn't go to their countries of origin to tell them to change their ways because we don't like their ways... right?

Besides, the Left and the Big Media keep telling us, via those famous talking points, that we "shouldn't impose our ways onto other countries", including imposing freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights. So the Left and the Big Media would be hypocritical and useful-idiot to turn around and say that it's proper for folks from elsewhere to come here and decide the future of our country just because they want to remake it according to their own ideology.

Who do you think the "some in English Canada" are?

“They” would be the very same leftist who wrote that disingenuous crap.

Of course I'm referring to the Toronto media dirt bag liars. I get a laugh at how the gutless wonders try to hide behind, and amongst the rest of us when they spew their stupidity.

The Illustrious ET asks (rhetorically, obviously): "Therefore, one has to ask - why immigrate if you openly declare that you reject the basic societal modes of belief and behaviour of the new society?"

So you can soak the rubes for welfare and free housing with indoor plumbing, live in a beautiful new city -and- have no secret police watching your every move.

And still beat your three wives. Awesome! Who wouldn't go for that deal?

To add a counterpoint to banning all face coverings, let's not get crazy. I don't want to have to choose between a serious fine/prison time or getting frostbite and losing my ears. Let's try to look at the appropriateness of the response, so we don't end up getting bitten in the ass by it down the road.

Mike L. "it is not about Arab men lusting over them if they see their face, it's about the control of women by Muslim men and the intimiadation of Western socity."
==========================
No. It's not about Arab men lusting over them if they see their faces. It's about giving Arab men a ready made excuse for the crime of rape. It's her fault, not his. Remember the Australian Iman a few years ago who said as much? According to him, a scantily dressed woman (ie. without the veil and the whole schmeer) is like meat and men are just satisfying a natural hunger. I suppose in a way, he was right. When you keep your women in tents, and allow men to marry many several women at the same time, thus diminishing the range of available marriage partners for the losers, that will leave a lot of young men hungry (and ready to do violence to keep their minds off their crotches).

Another Calgary Marc, come on. That sort of distinction should be fairly easy to articulate into law.

This, like everything else, can be blamed on the Jews. Or the prime minister. Or the oil sands. The Glob will figure it out.