What he said.

2015 Federal Election 37 Comments

37 Replies to “What he said.”

  1. Exactly so. Do not be misled or deflected by those posts featuring a smiling and pleasant looking woman in a head-scarf which imply that the figure in the photograph would be prevented from taking part in a citizenship ceremony, or those which suggest that the nasty Conservatives are forbidding women from wearing the niqab, the hijab, the burka, or a PEI potato sack in their daily business. The reference is only to public ceremonies where our traditions and values call for others to be able to see your face.

  2. Andrew Coyne in today’s National Post takes this on. I believe he and those who agree with him really do not understand the issue and why it is so offensive for many Canadians for someone to insist on wearing a niqab at a citizenship ceremony. Justin’s objection the terrorists losing their citizenship is also completely misguided. I hope Canadians wake up soon to the dangers that the Libs and NDP are courting with their failure to see the problem with people wearing a mask as they become Canadian. The Canadian terrorists with dual citizenship also took an oath — which they subsequently violated. So how do we know a woman in a niqab is even saying the words. Insisting on wearing the niqab in this context is disrespectful to Canadian culture. I strongly suspect some Muslim men’s group is behind this push. They will then guarantee that they can force other women to where the niqab in any context. Trudeau has a peculiar way of showing his support for women.

  3. “The Canadian terrorists with dual citizenship also took an oath — which they subsequently violated.”
    Indeed.
    Both Mr Mulcair and Mr Trudeau seem to forget that any naturalized citizen who has sworn to “faithfully observe the laws of Canada” is liable to lose that citizenship if they violate its terms.

  4. “I believe he and those who agree with him really do not understand the issue and why it is so offensive for many Canadians for someone to insist on wearing a niqab at a citizenship ceremony.”
    I think they understand it, Linda. But their certainty of their moral and intellectual superiority over us – the 85% – just won’t allow them to admit that anything other than their view has any merit. It’s the infallibility of the self-anointed elite…a terrible cross to bear.

  5. Coyne and Trudeau prefer to keep feeding the alligator in hopes it will eat them last. I say it’s high time we drain the swamp.

  7. When I encounter a Burrr ka in public I don’t look at the eyes, eye look at the shape of the burr ka and what it may be concealing. Definitely makes me nervous. Been to many islamic regions of the world and I’m not sure I encountered the burr ka as much as I have here.
    Under the burr ka.

  8. Well, as far as I can remember, the initial stages of this election campaign, at the behest of our “professional” MSM, was about the supposed (and utterly unproven) “culpability” of a certain Prime Minister in respect of how the “expenses” of one of his appointees to the Senate (1 of 62, or something) got paid back with no loss to the Canadian taxpayer.
    Then, having failed that, and at the behest of themselves, our “professional” MSM got on about the “Syrian” “refugee” “crisis”, blaming a certain Prime Minister (on an utterly unproven basis) for heartlessly “drowning” a small child.
    Then, having failed that, and at the behest of themselves, our “professional” MSM raised the issue of the entirely self-inflicted litigation of a woman who chose to “fight for her right” to wear a certain face-covering at a citizenship ceremony, in time for her to vote in this election.
    We can talk, a bit, I suppose, about the “Charter” challenges of the convicted dual-citizenship terrorists, who are facing the stripping of their Canadian citizenship.
    The “professional” MSM, needlessly, IMO, led us to exactly where they did not want to be.

  9. Coyne knows precisely that this is a critical issue that unites Canadians. What you are seeing is an attempt to redirect the message, and to create doubt in the minds of readers, and minimize the issue that has potential to unite Canadians behind the only party who gets it – the Harper Conservatives.
    Coyne is not an idiot. He is however a committed progressive who has his marching orders.

  10. I’m a Commissioner for Oaths and the citizenship oath controversy and the related court ruling really has me shaking and scratching my head. If someone is swearing an oath they HAVE to be heard doing it. I can understand the practicality of mass taking of citizenship oaths but those people making that oath should be visibly making it, they are under observation and their lips better be moving in some semblance of the solemn oath they are making. It’s unacceptable that someone might cover their face and remain silent or quietly repeat Allahu Akbar…

  11. This woman with her insistence on wearing the niqab when taking the citizenship oath is the thinnest edge of the wedge to make Canada accept Sharia Law and all the other evils of Islam.

  12. According to this, the oath is 42 seconds.
    Given all Canadian citizenship provides, for the rest of your life, is it really too much to ask to show your face for 42 seconds?

  13. It seems obvious to me the whole niqab “controversy?” isn’t about diversity or tolerance or accommodating new comers – it’s about submitting to the dogmas of the political/ruling elite.
    They have a great deal of street cred invested in their multicult narrative that fallaciously poses that all cultures are equal and it is always our culture which is intolerant – well, here we have an open display of the fallicy of that surreal equivocation with a culture which considers itself so superior to other cultures it will make no concession to its host culture and diplays a rigid intolerance of our cultural norms and civil responsibilities (such as being personally accountable for your identity in civil duties like voting, citizenship, giving evidence in court)
    The radical Islamic dogmas are inconpatable with the very narratives of the political elite’s own narratives – they know it, we know it and they know we know it and see we disagree – so the push is on to impose their will on us using all the frightening little devices the modern leviathan state, its political science, and propaganda techs can devise.
    Canadians see through it so the elite are doubling down and are now in full repression mode of any pleb dissent – displaying the autocrat reflex beneath their thin disguise as socially sensitive progs
    It’s just cultural facism dressed in sheep’s clothing going to bat for another intolerant despotic theology. Intolerance is a convergence point between radical Islam and prog elitist authoritarianism.

  14. I think that is an important point. What is the point of even taking the oath or having a citizenship “ceremony” if there is no formal recognition of the meaning of that ceremony. It is about formally embracing Canadian identity and values (openness and equality) exactly the opposite of what the niqab woman wants to do. This is about the deliberate undermining of traditional Canadian identity. There is an agenda here for sure . . . someone is paying for it . . . or some (likely Muslim men’s) group behind the initiative. Ezra explored the concept of taqiyya (lying to the infidel) in one of his articles if I am not mistaken. We are naive to assume that Muslims — particularly activist ones such as this woman and whoever is behind her)are being totally honest with us. I am not anti-Muslim (at least I hope not, as I have met some really fine people who are Muslims), however the activists have an agenda (supported by the hypocritical “progressives”) and those are the ones we must be wary of.

  15. They tried to bring Sharia to Ontario once. That failure does not mean it won’t be a continual battle. Canadians must stand for Canadians. That means working to ensure equal freedoms, opportunity and justice for us all. As soon as accomodation is made for parallel laws to exist which creates unequal freedoms, opportunity and justice the common social fabric that binds us together as a nation in spite of our many differences tears and Canada as a whole becomes weaker.

  16. LindaL, I think you are exactly right. I don’t understand why people don’t see this for what it is. This isn’t about how some woman chooses to dress. This is about someone making a political statement while taking the Oath of Citizenship. She is essentially giving the finger to Canadian values while at the same time promising to uphold them.

  17. Tried? Past tense? No, they accomplished it. Just ask the Toronto School Board and those that are given benefits for multiple wives. Ontario recognizes multiplie marriages if done elsewhere.

  18. Re: Coyne’s column, count the insults to your intelligence:

    ”It was a ridiculous issue when the numbers of women involved were thought to be in the dozens. It is a more ridiculous issue now that it has been confirmed the actual number of women to have been refused citizenship for failing to uncover since 2011 when the policy was introduced is … two.”

    If, by his own logic, it’s more ridiculous as an issue if only two women wear the niqab during their citizenship than if there were dozens, why doesn’t he extrapolate the numbers and complete the thought? Is his argument entirely about principles, as he announces throughout the column, or is it about the extent of the risk?
    And are there any other proscribed, and arguably menacing, behaviours that are perfectly okay as long as only a few people do it but not okay if larger numbers of people do it?

    ”If the federal Conservatives hadn’t made an issue of it, none of those now raising blue hell at this insult to their tender sensibilities would even have been aware of it.”

    Got it? None of us would be aware of the issue unless a politician that Coyne doesn’t like had pointed it out to us; Andrew Coyne would have known about it, of course, but the ilk of people who are “raising blue hell” about it — you know who he’s talking about — wouldn’t have known about it.

    “The women in question, it is true, represent an extreme minority within Islam, but it is simply false to equate extreme or fanatical religious views with a willingness to commit mass murder. Again, this should not need saying — but apparently it does.”

    Yah — and the reason it needs saying is because it’s not true. When it comes to Islam, the more extreme and radical of the Islamists are precisely the ones — the only ones — committing mass murder. Coyne does an end-run around this fact by dropping in one quick word: “equate.” It’s a sleight of hand. Merely understanding the indisputable fact that it’s predominantly – overwhelmingly – an extreme minority within Islam who commit acts of terrorism around the globe isn’t the same as “equating” the niqab with terrorism; the majority of Canadians who oppose covering one’s face at a citizenship ceremony aren’t averring that the women who refuse to show their faces to their fellow citizens are jihadists.

    ”I am inclined to think that, in their own way, it is the niqabistes who best embody (Canadian values). In their ornery unwillingness to bend to others’ sensitivities, in their insistence on going their own way on a matter of principle, those women are in the finest Canadian tradition of hellraising….”

    Yup, the very people who make a point of separating themselves from other Canadians are the most Canadian. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this perspective also applies – shocka! – to the lecturing elite. As LindaL put it,

    “I believe he and those who agree with him really do not understand the issue and why it is so offensive for many Canadians for someone to insist on wearing a niqab at a citizenship ceremony.”

    Exactly. It’s a lot easier to advise others to live by one’s own high-minded putative principles, and to lecture from a secure, lofty perch, when you don’t have to, and never will have to, live among the riffraff in areas full of immigrants who don’t respect western values and don’t want to assimilate — hence the endless muffled pronouncements delivered from the “fold-and-smooch” position by Coyne, Affleck, Merkel, Streisand, Pelosi, Trudeau, etc.

  19. Canadians do not tolerate intolerance. The Niqab is about as intolerant a public act towards women as one could imagine. And Canadians will not tolerate their government tolerating such intolerance.

  21. Sorry, and all that.
    But could you tolerate 40 to 50 seats from Quebec?
    Just askin’, of course.

  22. Coyne has been in the tank for Trudeau since the beginning. Every once in awhile he hides it with a few shots at him.

  23. I just hope that Tommunist remains as highly principled as ever.
    The numbers are crashing Tommunist, stay principled, becoming PM was just a pipe dream, and just SOOOOOOOOOOO Bourgeosie!

  24. Politicize the niqab issue and then blame the Conservatives when it become an issue, where Canadian resoundingly agree with the PM’s position.
    Progressives both use the change buzzword in their slogans, then argue they’re actually moderates who really don’t want to change that much. Then they publicly proclaim they will defy the will of the voter on the niqab issue. What other policies & issue would they give themselves permission to again defy the voter? It’s a fair question. A cursory look at the AB NDP and ON Liberals gives plenty of evidence to that possible effect.
    The voter has noticed this too. They have been having a hard time making up their mind owing imho to the constant negative yattering about PMSH, that only a stupid person would support him. So the niqab joins economics, security and trade issues and issues the media will explore.
    The niqab is one of many contradictory policies on the left, who if they really felt “2/3 of Canadians” agreed with them, would have long ago joined parties. The fact they haven’t, due to obvious philosophical differences, disproves that argument, along with the abject failure of strategic voting.
    The refugee and niqab issue represents the point of political inflection when Harper takes back the moderate vote he won in 2011. Add to that Mulcair’s abysmal debate personae, plus Trudeau’s sweeping generalizations and pontifications, not to mention a ridiculous detailed budget costing, and I predict a large voter movement towards Harper from moderate voters eager to avoid more parliamentary intrigue and another election soon.
    I feel the dynamic is similar to 2011, without Jack Layton’s charisma, so unless the 905 belt is as politically inept as my ON friends fear, and the BC voters will decide to go with a Quebec leader, Harper will win a majority. Even if one or both of those play out, Harper still wins a minority large enough to withstand any attempted coalition/minority.
    Add to this, even at present polling with Conservatives only slightly ahead, the numbers impute Justin Trudeau will pick up between 30 and 40 new seats in ON. I simply don’t believe it.
    Having said that, never doubt the contented citizens’ propensity to do exactly the wrong thing for the economic welfare, AB being a case in point.

  26. Coyne uses the same leftist pomposity the media in Europe use. Anyone who challenges Merkel and other leaders is instantly branded far right, racist and islamophobic to use her words. I am completely at a loss to understand why these leaders embrace muslim migrants by the thousands for ever changing their countries in another dar-al-islam hell hole. I know they are progressives even when Cameron is supposedly Conservative but where do they think they can escape to when Big Ben comes crashing down?

  28. A bit off topic on my part I will agree, but Rosemary Barton of CBC almost beside herself. She is thumping away at a Mr. Gill. The subject is the deportation and revoking Canadian citizenship of terrorists. Unbelievable (at 5:15pm).

  30. Coyne says these 2 are religiously motived and there is no contrary evidence.
    I would argue there is no evidence that religion IS their real motivation since there are only 2 who have done it. He states the women have done so “in the face of a hostile majority”. I would think the face of a hostile husband and local religious leaders would have a lot more affect on their behavior than letters to the editor in the National Post. Now I have no evidence to support that but then neither does Coyne. I just think my theory makes more sense.
    I think the point these 2 women are being forced to make is political:
    “We are Muslim fist Canadian second. You Canadian Kafir will adapt your laws and customs to fit our beliefs.”
    Fortunately 82% of Canadians think otherwise even if some of our political leaders and unelected judges don’t. There’s hope for us yet.

  31. the niqab is the equivalent of the childhood class shyt disturber crossing their fingers whilst ‘promising’ (the crossed fingers exempt them from abiding with the terms of the promise) to behave in future.
    what on earth happened to Canuckistan that so many are in support of this very fundamental push? and it is a push. make no mistake.

  32. Old White Guy stated: I really hate muslims because they really hate us and want to kill us.
    Ditto for me. I’m an old white guy also.

  33. Gerald Caplan is on the CBC saying that if you think that the niqab oppresses women, you are also saying that Islam oppresses women.
    He got it right, it is too bad that he doesn’t realize that.

  34. We (meaning everyone from the gov’t to Barbara Kay) are making a grievous mistake by backtracking from “no place in Canadian society” to “no place in a Citizenship ceremony”. Accepting the niqab anywhere, except for citizenship is capitulation to the Islamists.
    The niqab is a political statement, not a religious accoutrement. It says that everything and everyone is subservient to Islam, including your social and cultural values. The intent is to segregate and separate women from the rest of society and is being used as a cudgel to force Canadians into submissiveness to their own culture.
    Mark Steyn is right. We have lost confidence in the value of our own culture and are willing to squander 400 years of civilization on the altar of political correctness.

  35. Well, that’s all well and good, and all that, but, the question remains:
    Is the Conservative Party prepared to accept a near land-slide victory, at about 42% (that damned number hangs in my head every day)?
    I’m guessing, of course, that Dr. Bricker will have a new poll out shortly, showing break-out numbers: otherwise, why would he post those tweets?
    Can you live with that? We certainly can, in our neck of the woods.

  36. ” We have lost confidence in the value of our own culture and are willing to squander 400 years of civilization on the altar of political correctness.” That certainly explains how so many can support the idea of protecting terrorist’s citizenship “rights”. In my view, the left has totally lost perspective. They are the angry, divisive ones who fail to communicate that they have any notion of what it is to be a Canadian. They have totally devalued the notion of citizenship.

  37. Linda, you are so correct. To anyone attending a local all party candidates meeting during this election the illogical anger manifest in every question/utterance of “progressive” audience members, of all ages, is dismaying. And many of them have accents acquired well outside of the Ottawa Valley or the Canadian Maritimes; outside this country actually.
    Frankly, they give me the creeps.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation