Funny, how two or three posts ago a judge made a decision advocating the rape of a Muslim wife because neither she nor her husband supposedly knew it was wrong.
Now we’re supposed to believe that some Muslim women actually choose to wear a symbol of obedience and subservience.
Tough spot for Trudeau, ideals or seats. Ah, what am I saying, it’s all an act anyway. A drama, if you will.
“…neither she nor her husband supposedly knew it was wrong.” You come to my country, you abide by my rules. The poor woman no doubt knew it was wrong, but she would have been taught from childhood that her husband could do no wrong. We need to change the way we advise men and women of our mores here in Canada.
At a funeral today for a friend whose marriage spanned 65 years. Many tributes to him, but also many to his wife. One comment from a son was that they knew their father’s vows, once taken, were for life. Even when there were fierce arguments between their parents, they knew that divorce would never be an issue. And, from what I have gathered, this was a relationship of mutual love and respect, which says a lot for the widow as her husband was definitely a larger-than-life character (or, as a friend put it “…went through life with all the subtlity of the tank in which he served {WW II – Italy and then on up through France to Germany}.” We should all have that relationship with our spouses.
The Costanza defense:
If you are a Seinfeld fan, you might recall the episode when George was caught having sex with a cleaning woman on his desk. When confronted by his boss, he replied, “Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon.”
Actually I think some muslim women do want to wear the niqab and even the burqa. It is their way of boasting of their religiosity. Kind of like the pharisees or Jesus’ time who would put on a big show of their fasting and extra long tassels on their cloaks. The muslim women who dress like that are not doing it to be attractive but rather in your face religious confrontation.
The points made here are fantastic.
Trudeau won’t try overturning this. Quebeckers want this bill. If he loses votes in Quebec, he will be up a certain creek which shall remain nameless for now.
To that point, can you imagine the outcry from the left if Alberta or Sask did this? The screams of RACISTS and REDNECKS would echo from coast to coast. The phony, pious outrage would be fueling it as the lead story on every broadcast.
The Liberals’ true nature of bigotry and fear of real diversity is currently being hidden in plain sight. If not for the misdirection by the Canadian media, even Canadians with half a brain would see it…. so, I guess that still excludes leftards.
BTW, in Islamic countries, there are plenty of situations where women are required to uncover their faces. This is a wholly manufactured “crisis”, purely invented by globalists to further fracture the heritage of this country.
So one staunch opponent of the Bill is Patrick Brown who thinks the bill should he challenged. Patrick Brown is a lost soul. He is destroying the base of Conservative Ontario voters. I will be happy when he is gone and the PC’s in Ontario can get back to Conservative principles.
Lance you can’t be that daft. Of course many muslim women want to wear the niqab. Just as some catholic women choose to be celibate and become nuns.
Trudeau will just procrastinate and let his minions express their outrage. Notley has already called the bill Islamophobic. Trudeau hopes that someone will win a challenge of the bill on constitutional grounds so that he can just shrug his shoulders and tell Quebecers that the courts have decided the issue.
Yes, I wonder if the Kebec law contravenes M103……..interesting times…….
We wouldn’t be having these problems if we simply limited immigration from countries whose culture is alien to ours. Migration policy is supposed to benefit Canadians. What benefit is there when people arrive from counties where 90% of those surveyed think apostates should be killed.
We’ve already seen where it leads in Europe. Daily terror attacks, thousands of underage raped by organized gangs and utterly Balkanized communities that want sharia law imposed on all.
The Europeans were crazy to do it. How crazy is it to see where it leads, and do the exact same thing?
Thank you heather for this amazing list of stuff! Have you heard of CubbyCase? I recently heard about them from another parent and they’re a learning through play subscription box for children, by Harvard experts! Thought that would make a really interesting gift for kids. https://babyishcare.com/gift-ideas-16-year-old-boys/
So the drama queen has to decide.
The Muslim disporia, or the nationalists in Quebec?
My my, wouldn’t it be the height of irony if he was the PM that reinvigorated the separatist cause in Quebec?
But he better hurry and decide before the leader of the NDP ups the ante on him.
it is called Canadian crazy.
Is there a polite way of telling Patrick Brown to STFU on this one? I cannot understand what is so bad about asking people to show their faces. It’s sheer madness to try dealing with people with their faces covered, I would have to walk away, they are shunning us, it’s offensive, it might even be considered hostile.
“We wouldn’t be having these problems if we simply limited immigration from countries whose culture is alien to ours.”
Yeah, like the Irish: history.com/news/when-america-despised-the-irish-the-19th-centurys-refugee-crisis
And the Chinese: loc.gov/pictures/item/98502829/
And the Italians: amst312.umwblogs.org/2009/03/19/italians/
“Tough spot for…ideals.”
Indeed. And what say the SDA crowd–once the vocal champions of personal liberty, freedom and limited government–about the state telling its citizens what to wear?
Hypocrisy all around.
“Just as some catholic women choose to be celibate and become nuns.”
Some Catholic women do choose to be celibate and become nuns.
I guess you would have to poll the “SDA crowd” as to whether they are extreme libertarians or accept The Social Contract. I suspect, although I could be wrong, that there are more of the latter. So not hypocritical at all.
Has any one else here noticed that leftarded trolls only infest topics where their biased media have trained them with the proper talking points? I think I have yet to hear ANY opinion from one of these ignoramuses that I haven’t already been beaten to death with from the likes of CNN, CBC, etc.
Anyways, never understood the loser mentality of people who get their jollies trying to poke strangers in the eye. I assume they are social outcasts even among their own kind, so trolling is the only hope for validation they can find. Maybe saddest of all is that they are exposed to so much NEW information here that their own media hides from them and they STILL don’t give a shit about learning or expanding their thoughts.
So, please stop banging your heads against a concrete wall and don’t feed the stupid f*cking troll.
“And what say the SDA crowd–once the vocal champions of personal liberty, freedom and limited government–about the state telling its citizens what to wear?”
I think you make a very good point. There are many here who just don’t like Muslims.* Period. And so the principles they would normally champion can be quietly ignored when suddenly inconvenient.
For the record: I do not see how any putatively free society can prevent a private citizen – a Muslim woman in this case – from wearing a burkha. However, I do believe that the state can – and should require – that faces be exposed in those specific, limited situations where security and/or identification necessitate it. We in Canada got ourselves into this awkward muddle because we did not insist on such rules from the get-go.
* But let’s be clear. Contrary to all the “diversity” nonsense touted by government, in a free society, nobody has to like anybody; they only have to tolerate them.
THANKS Chip you echo my feelings exactly! I expressed a very similar thought on our CBC AND MY COMMENT WAS DISABLED! What did Jack Nicholson say ” You can’t handle the truth”!!!Ha
Lance you can’t be that daft. Of course many muslim women don’t want to be educated. Just as some catholic women choose to become nuns and start highly successful schools.
There Gord … fixed it for you. You see, not all cultures are equal.
Agreed, where the state has a legitimate interest in security and identification–at the airport line, say, or when applying for government documents, they can validly compelling facial exposure. But when checking out a library book? Riding a bus? This is the kind of overreaching and intrusive law that SDA folks would normally oppose (and in other cases, have opposed) were it not targeted at Muslims.
An anti trudeau rally in hog town? That’s rich. The nazis vs commies in canader?
Kathy Shaidle is wrong when she tries to refute Conquest’s First Law because she equates “conservative” with a particular set of political ideals, whereas Conquest simply meant the word literally: Everyone wants things to stay exactly the same about the things they know best.
It’s Heinlein who provides the corollary to Conquest’s First Law: “It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.”
“And what say the SDA crowd–once the vocal champions of personal liberty, freedom and limited government–about the state telling its citizens what to wear?”
How about the State telling us who we have to interact with and under what bizarre circumstances? Somebody wants to wear a bee suit in public? You get NOTHING from me.
This has been quite the month hasn’t it.
Trudeau just can’t seem to rid himself of commitments he made during the election in the self inflicted wound sort of way.
Now it’s the irony of his watered down response to Quebec’s law limiting face coverings.
But then if Trudeau is doing it then by Trudeau’s own measure “those things that Stephen Harper won’t do”, it’s going to be awfully hard to resurrect the vast right conspiracy come election time.
The meme now is.
If Justin is doing it then Stephen Harper didn’t.
Failed on budgeting to only a small deficit.
Failed refugee targets
Failed to get replacement for CF18.
Failed on peace keeping commitments.
Failed on MMIW inquiry.
Failed on promise to eliminate FPTP.
And now add failure to be the charter champ he presented himself to be.
What’s left that can be listed as accomplishment?
A fashion plate for men’s hosiery.
Didn’t the media and Trudeau’s Liberals mercilessly beat on Harper’s Conservatives about requiring Muslim women to remove their head coverings while giving the citizenship Oath in front of a judge and make it a big election issue? It seems that the province of Quebec is now siding with the previous Harper Gov’t… People are continuing to wake up to what it really means to be Canadian and tolerance of oppressive clothing in the name of religious freedom isn’t part of it. The issue of Islam’s incongruities with Canadian culture and values isn’t going away any time soon.
Now if only our stupid judges can learn that ignorance of the law of the land doesn’t excuse rape! Smh.
Quebec gets a pass because it is Quebec. Had any other province (like Alberta and Saskatchewan, for example) done this, one would be inundated with several misplaced and unnecessary redneck remarks. Quebec is allowed to be xenophobic for whatever reason. Whatever the reason, Trudeau will make sure that he does not challenge it directly but, as often does, give some middling platitude and try to appease both sides if he can.
He can’t.
A great orator and negotiator could but we’re talking about Trudeau here.
He WILL lose votes if he tries to quash this bill. Notice how all of these polls saying how lovely Trudeau is and everyone would vote for him always come out whenever he’s screwed up? Those polls will show up every minute if Quebec collectively decides to stick it to Trudeau.
The problem with the libertarian argument with this is that, though the head covering is not a clear mandate in the Koran, it is enforced AND it is done to put a thumb in the eye of the popular culture. It has also been used to commit crimes. How can any of that be defended as a support of personal or public liberty? Catholic nuns (that’s with a capital C) wear veils that do not obscure their identity because that is a symbol of their office, rather like a uniform. They do not wear them to be in one’s face nor are they obtuse about removing them should a security reason arise. Referencing them in this argument is intellectually and morally disingenuous.
“The problem with the libertarian argument with this is that, though the head covering is not a clear mandate in the Koran, it is enforced AND it is done to put a thumb in the eye of the popular culture.”
Wrong. There doesn’t have to be a “clear mandate in the Koran”; like most religious matters, it’s all a question of interpretation. Assuming you are not a Muslim,you hardly have any religious authority to argue the matter. Muslims are certainly not required to somehow “prove” the theological validity of their religious practices for the benefit of non-Muslims.
The Amish and Hasidic Jews certainly interpret scriptures with their dress codes even though these are quite clearly not the dress codes of most Christians and Jews.
Correction: there ARE clear mandates in the Koran, hence the Jew-hating and the infidel-killing. And Muslims are required to prove their piety wherever and whenever they can. That’s mandated, too.
These misogynist head/body coverings are worn not only because women are forced to wear them but because they feel that Canada, Canadians and their customs and laws are not worth noticing or protecting. There are several examples of this.
I would make uncovering one’s face and body a condition of citizenship. Either Muslim women can join the twenty-first century uncovered or they can leave. That’s not unreasonable.
As I stated, not being a Muslim, you hardly have any religious authority to argue the matter.
I’ve said this before on this site and this topic but I’ll go out on a limb and say it again. The Koran instructs Muslims that husbands and fathers have the right to beat their wives and daughters if they are not obedient. Full Stop. The only provision is that the bruises must not be visible, hence the burka and the niqab. Everything else in this debate is smoke and mirrors. The enforcement of wearing a burka is a poke in the eye by ‘devout’ Muslims to the West. If we continue to allow these minorities to fracture our collective culture, then the stronger they become the weaker we become. A society exists because it develops laws and customs that prove beneficial over time to protect itself, when these laws and customs are discarded then that society is discarded. We may not be in the rubbish dump of history yet but rest assured we are travelling down the road and the garbage truck is picking up speed as our laws and customs dumped one by one.
“It’s Heinlein who provides the corollary to Conquest’s First Law: ‘It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.'”
And why shouldn’t they?
Secular ideologies certainly do.
How are those cultures alien to ours? They separate religious law from secular law, and decades of assimilation prove they’re compatible.
For Islam, there is no secular law, no Reformation, and many decades of evidence showing assimilation is likely getting worse not better.
It’s remarkable how Canadians can 1) celebrate multiculturalism and simultaneously 2) assert all immigrants are the same.
This is a fascist law from a province that prides itself in fascist law. The Spawn can’t ummm and ahhh his way around it.
As for Eli’s challenge, natural revulsion against Islam and Shariah within a libertarian society would morph from unacceptable state discrimination to necessarily private discrimination. IOW, my bus company can require no face coverings (nor Muslims) as can my factories, hotels, labour contractors and my rental units, etc. Automatonic acceptance of the socialist immigration of Islam and therefore Shariah by “libertarians” within existent welfare states has little to do with libertarianism. Much like the drug legalization topic, cherry picking elements of libertarian dogma out of full context of elimination of the welfare / fascist / socialist state is just one of those FU, in your face libertarian turn-offs that a few well hidden individuals use around here.
Do I have your kind permission to opine what happens in my country?
I realise that having read about and considered these issues and living in Canada makes my thoughts on the matter irrelevant but I’d still like to give it the old college try.
(says the person who agreed with your capital C Catholic point)
“How are those cultures alien to ours? They separate religious law from secular law, and decades of assimilation prove they’re compatible.”
In every era of Canadian history, there have been relative newcomers. And in every era, there have been those in Canadian society who’ve decried these newcomers, who sees them as a threat, who’ve insisted that these foreign cultures were incompatible and should be kept out for the good of the nation.
The Irish were seen as not being compatible…until it became evident that they were.
The Chinese were seen as unassimilable…until it became evident that they could.
The Italians were seen as alien…until…well, you get the idea.
In our era, it’s immigrants from the Middle East, and in particular Muslims. Knowing what we know now about Irish Canadians, Chinese Canadians, and Italian Canadians, which side of history would you like to be on?
“For Islam, there is no secular law, no Reformation, and many decades of evidence showing assimilation is likely getting worse not better.”
There are over a million self-identified Muslims in Canada, and my guess is, you can’t name more than a dozen or so. Nor should you have to — because the reason why you can’t name more than 0.0012% of that population? They’ve assimilated. They’re doctors, or lawyers, or cab drivers, or plumbers, or accountants. They pour your double-doubles in the morning and teach your kids at school. They’re everywhere, and you don’t notice 99% of the time because there’s no reason for you to. Their faith is Islam, but they are Canadians just like you. The only problem is, you pay more attention to what you read on SDA than to your own daily experiences.
“Do I have your kind permission to opine what happens in my country?”
No one is stopping you.
I’m just saying that arguments on whether this or that is or isn’t “Muslim” are ridiculous if you’re not a Muslim* (I’d be equally annoyed myself if a non-Catholic presumed to tell me what was or wasn’t Catholic). It’s just a lame approach.
* By the way, when I hear one of our vapid (and clearly non-Muslim) political leaders blather on about Islam being “a religion of peace” or “this terrorism has nothing to do with Islam”, I’m seized by the urge to ask: “Oh? I had no idea you were a qualified imam, Prime Minister.”
@Eli
“…once the vocal champions of personal liberty, freedom and limited government–about the state telling its citizens what to wear?”
Because you support white neo-Nazi’s wearing swastika’s & SS uniforms parading everywhere in public?
Maybe some reading of Mein Kamph blasting across town from loudspeakers mounted on high towers, every morning and evening?
How about some K.K.K diversity and tolerance training in school for your kids.
*
“gord tulk says… Of course many muslim women
want to wear the niqab.”
gord… there’s that whole “pavlov’s genitals” dealio…
remembering having your clitoris forcibly sliced
off as a little girl, i don’t imagine most muslim women
offer up any sort of resistance to anything the men
in their lives tell them to do.
and can you blame them?
*
Some Muslims assimilate — somewhat — and others do not. That’s because their religion does not encourage associating with the infidel. When some daughters in Muslim families want to marry outside of their religion, they are forbidden to do so, sometimes violently. Some Muslims very strongly oppose Western culture. They migrate to fulfill Hyjra obligations. Their goal is to conquer the world for Allah. This is not true of all Muslims, but it is true for some, and it is good to be aware. Assimilation should not be taken for granted,regardless of what previous groups have done. The veil wearers obviously do not choose to assimilate.
I think one can sort out what is or isn’t so. It’s called research.
One can also see where Canadian society will go if one does not put the brakes on ridiculous head-coverings. It’s called Iran/Saudi Arabia/western Europe.
“Now we’re supposed to believe that some Muslim women actually choose to wear a symbol of obedience and subservience.”
Yes you are. That’s their choice. The government has no right dictating otherwise.
I јust сould not leave уoսr website Ƅefore suggesting tһat I extremely loved thｅ
standard info an individual supply fоr yoᥙr visitors?
Is gonna be Ƅack incessantly too check up on new posts
Actuaⅼly when someone doesn’t be aware of then its
up to other users that ttһey will help, so here it happens.