Something for those who aren't celebrating Canuckistan Day

Can Muslims integrate into western societies? The French say NON!

"Face à l'islam, les Français s'inquiètent" - That's the unsurprising headline on a report in Le Journal du Dimanche (= Sunday Journal) on a recent survey conducted by pollsters IFOP (French Institute of Public Opinions). It means "Confronted by Islam, the French are getting worried." No kidding!

The IFOP poll showed that 61% of French people think that Islamism is "incompatible with the values of French society." That's a rise of 8% over the number who thought that when asked in 2018. The polling firm was investigating the "worrying" rise and influence of Islamism in France, and its manifestations in many aspects of public life, particularly in the public display of such symbols of Islam as the wearing of the niqab (veil) and burqa (complete head-to-toe body covering). (If you're not sure of the difference, click here for Walt's explanation.)

Another manifestation of the Islamization of France (and all of western Europe) is the increasing number of schools where Islam, including the law of Sharia, is taught. According to the IFOP survey, 80% of pensioners, 69% of workers, 70% of employers, and even 55% of left-wing voters expressed concern about this. According to another IFOP survey, nearly half (46%) of foreign-born Muslim immigrants want France to replace its legal system with Sharia law. That point of view is supported by 18% of Islamists born in France.

On this and other questions on the accommodation of Muslims, the poll noted a strong difference of opinion between between left and right. About 55% of the supporters of the leftist group France Insumisa and the Socialist Party defended Muslim worship, while 85% of the supporters of Marine Le Pen's National Rally agreed with the statement that "Islamism is incompatible with the values of French society."

The survey results add to those compiled last month by international global consulting firm IPSOS, which revealed that 60% of French people saw as a threat the already massive but still growing number of immigrants arriving as a result of President Emmanuel Macron's open border policy. "More than one in two French (60%) see migrants as a threat," the survey data said, and 65% "think that welcoming them will not improve the country's situation. 45% of French people think that "the arrival of migrants deprives French people of social services," it added, noting that "the idea that French people should be given priority in the allocation of jobs has increased in France over the past three years."

The people of France seem pretty clued in about the threat to their society posed by the influx of alien immigrants and "refugees". The people of Québec have also figured it out. See "Québec to require immigrant wannabes to pass values test", WWW 31/10/19. Whether the realization comes too late to keep the Muslim tails from wagging the French and Québécois dogs doesn't bear thinking about. President Trump has moved to stop or at least limit Muslim immigration. Canada's Islamophile Prime Minister? Hah!

Netherlands latest EU country to ban the burqa

The Netherlands today joined a number of other European nations -- and non-EU countries too -- in implementinga law requiring people to show their faces in public, when providing or accessing public services. Clothing that "covers the face" must not be worn in a variety of public spaces, such as schools, hospitals, public buildings and public transport. A similar law was recently passed by the National Assembly of the Canadian province of Québec.

Contrary to the fake news being spread by the usual gang of Islamophiles and SJWs, the ban does not target only Muslim women. It applies equally to men and women, and prohibits not only burqas and nijabs -- see "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10 -- but any full-face covering, such as a balaclava or motorcycle helmets. [What about a hockey goalie mask? Ed.] Anyone who doesn't comply can be denied access to public areas, and fined up to €150 ($167 in real money).

France was the first country in Europe to ban the veil almost ten years ago. Last year, however, a committee of the United Nations (of course!) ruled that the legislation violated human rights. In spite of the UN's predictable opinion, other European countries have followed suit. In Denmark, the burqa ban has been in effect for a year. And earlier this year, Austria passed a law intended to ban Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in primary schools. The headscarf ruling came in addition to Austria's prohibition of full-face coverings which has been in force since 2017.

The German state of Hesse has implemented similar burqa restrictions for the civil service. Six months ago, full-face coverings were forbidden at Kiel University in northern Germany, citing the need for open communication that includes facial expressions and gestures. However, some politicians (Hello, Angela Merkel!) came out against the move, saying it undermined religious freedom.

The most surprising imposition of a burqa ban comes, however, from the Islamic kingdom of Morocco! As reported in "Burqas banned in... you'll never guess!", WWW 17/1/17, because of concerns about... wait for it... security! A spokesthingy for the Moroccan Ministry of the Interior told AFP, "We have taken the step of completely banning the import, manufacture and marketing of this garment in all the cities and towns of the kingdom, since bandits have repeatedly used this garment to perpetrate their crimes." ("Bandits" is Arabic for "terrorists".)

What are the chances of a burqa ban being enacted in The Rest of Canada (Just In Trudeau, Prop.) or the Paranoid States of America? In today's political climate, where any proposal that smacks of "Islamophobia" is instantly condemned by all progressive, correct-thinking people as "racist" and "divisive", the chances of a burqa ban are slim and none.

Further reading (and viewing): "'Ordinary Muslim' sez banning the burqa makes sense", WWW 18/1/19 - video interview with Toronto Sun columnist Tarek Fatah.

Guest editorial: Embrace liberty, get rid of the hijab!

Walt likes to make readers aware of important dates and events -- things you should know so that you can make the proper adjustments to your view of the world. In particular, you must think some more about the Religion of Peace (TM) and how our society should embrace it, and all followers of the Prophet Mohammed, including (without limiting the generality of the foregoing) ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, and the Taliban. M-103.

You will hear more about being nice to Muslims on February 1st, which the powers that be (you know who they are) have decreed to be World Hijab Day. Seriously. Not making this up. The good folks at Dr. Rich Swier's blog have submitted an editorial which Walt is pleased to post below.

The mission of World Hijab Day (February 1st) is to allegedly make non-Muslims aware of the societal response to Muslim women who wear a hijab. Perhaps Muslim women feel uncomfortable wearing the hijab in public because they know that millions of Americans see the hijab as exemplifying one of many harsh tenets of Sharia law that oppress women.

The hijab has replaced the pink triangle as the progressive left’s top symbol of diversity. However, tens of millions of Americans including thousands of Muslim women view the hijab as a symbol of Islamist, misogynistic repression. Nearly sixty percent of Muslims in America do not wear the hijab according to Pew Research published by NPR on April 21, 2011.

Some scholars of Islam teach that the Quran does not mandate the hijab. The hijab was invented and mandated by Mussah Sadr, an Iranian mullah, in the 1970s, 1300 years after the Quran was written. Sadr issued a Sharia edict that required women to wear the hijab to allegedly prevent their rape. Women In The World media published an article on September 15, 2015 titled “The day 100,000 Iranian women protested the head scarf.” The article displayed a seldom-seen collection of photographs, shot in Tehran in 1979, of thousands of women who are not wearing hijabs or other oppressive attire prior to Sadr enforcing Iran’s new Islamist hijab law.

British Muslim Qanta Ahmed wrote on March 18, 2017 in The Spectator UK: “As a Muslim, I strongly support the right to ban the veil. At last, the European Court of Justice has made a stand for European values. Rigid interpretations of the veil are a recent invention. They’re derived not from the Quran or early Islamic tradition but from a misogyny which claims a false basis in the divine.”

The same Sharia law that dictates women must wear the hijab also advocates harsh discipline (abuse) of wives, genital mutilation of girls and honor killing of allegedly dishonorable females. Hopefully, Muslim women will embrace the fullness of the liberty that is extended to them by the United States Constitution by doffing the oppressive hijab as most other Muslim women have done in America as well as take a stand against the harsh Sharia tenets that oppress them.

Further reading (and watching): "'Ordinary Muslim' sez banning the burqa makes sense", WWW 18/1/19.

VIDEO: "Ordinary Muslim" sez banning the burqa makes sense

Tarek Fatah, who's been mentioned and quoted in WWW before, is a columnist for the Toronto Sun. He's also a Muslim -- not one of the Islamic fanatics, but by his own account an "ordinary Muslim". Another thing that he's not is a right-wing ranter. In this video, he says that in the Ontario provincial election last June, he didn't vote for Doug Ford, the populist who won in a landslide.

So it seems Tarek Fatah is a pretty reasonable person. He's the one who gives the lie to the contention that there are no "moderate Muslims". Yet he advocates a ban on Islamic dress, particularly the burqa -- the shroud-like garment which covers conservative Muslim women from head to toe, leaving only a small slit through which they can look out. In just under seven minutes, Mr Fatah gives his reasons for such his views, characterized by the usual SJWs and NPCs as "racist" and "Islamophobic". Can you imagine a Muslim being an Islamophobe? Check it out.



Thanks and a flip of the fez to Agent 6 for sending us the link to this interview.

Further reading:
"French leader calls for ban on religious headgear and symbols in all public places", WWW 21/10/16.
"Politically incorrect Denmark bans burqa, niqab", WWW 31/5/18.
"Majority of Québécois want crucifix displayed in National Assembly, religious headgear banned in public sector", WWW 26/11/18.

Wife of Muslim blogger jailed in Saudi Arabia becomes Canadian citizen, calls for burqa ban

This morning, an intereting story appeared on the news website of Canada's Global TV, but not on the state-owned CBC News site. For Canucks who only have access to the Canadian Broadcorping Castration, Walt will précis the story. You can figure out for yourself why the CBC didn't run it.

Here (at right) you see a Muslim lady by the name of Ensaf Haidar, who, along with her three children, celebrated Canada Day (July 1st) by becoming a citizen of Canuckistan. She is married to Raif Badawi, depicted in the poster at left. Mr Badawi, who lived in Saudi Arabia, had the temerity to publish a blog -- always a dangerous avocation -- which was found by the Saudi princes to have "insulted Islam through electronic channels" -- a heinous offence under Sharia law.

Mr Badawi got a fair trial (under Sharia law, of course) and was condemned to seven years in prison and 600 lashes. The prosecutors thought that a mere slap on the wrist -- or back, perhaps -- and appealed. The sentence was later raised to 10 years in prison, 1000 lashes and a monetary fine. Three years after her husband was slapped into the Saudi dungeons, Ms Haidar and her children fled the ultra-Islamic kingdom and took refuge in Sherbrooke, QC, from where she has been campaigning hard for his release. Her pleas for the assistance of "Mr Socks" and his government have so far fallen on deaf ears.

Ms Haidar used the occasion of becoming a Canuck to post on Twitter a suggestion to Ontario's incoming premier, Doug Ford, that he follow the lead of la Belle Province outlaw the wearing in government settings, schools, banks, hospitals and public transportation of the burqa and the niqab -- Islamic head coverings that mask the wearer's face.

Quebec's Bill 62, which came into law in October but has yet to be fully implemented owing to the obstruction of liberal activist judges, doesn't specifically mention burqas or niqabs, but forbids people from covering their faces while providing and receiving public services. Similar laws have been enacted in France, the Netherlands, and Denmark.

In a statement to Global News, Ms Haidar said she wanted to use her first day as a Canadian citizen to raise awareness about the plight of women forced to abide by Sharia, or traditional Islamic law.

"As a Canadian who was born in Saudi Arabia under laws of Sharia where human rights are non-existent, I realised the power mysognist [sic] men [have] over powerless women with no rights. As a refugee in Québec and Canada I have noticed the fast growth of Islamist groups loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Saudi clergy imposing the Burqa and enforcing Niqab on girls and women as political flags to mark jihadi territory.

"Nowhere in Islam is a woman required to cover her face. This is medievalist mysoginy [sic] that treats women as animals and property of men and shamed into attire that befits slavery, not humanity. It is for this reason that on the first day as a Canadian I have raised the issue of banning the Burqa and Niqab in Ontario as I feel Premier Ford is a man who will listen to my plea and end the war by deception being waged by Islamists against Canadian values."

Anyone who can figure out why this story has not appeared on CBC News is invited to write the answer on the back of a postage stamp and send it to Walt at the usual address.

Further reading: "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10 -- still one of Walt's most-viewed posts!

Politically incorrect Denmark bans burqa, niqab

Denmark today joined Austria, France and Belgium in deciding to ban garments that cover the face, including Islamic veils such as the niqab or burqa. The law, popularly -- and that's the right word! -- known as the "Burqa Ban", was approved by the Danish parliament by a vote of 75 to 30, with 74 members absent or abstaining.

The centre-right governing coalition says the law is not aimed at any particular religion. Similar to Bill 62, a modified version of the Charter of Québec values, enacted by the Québec National Assembly last fall, it is directed at the dress worn by some conservative Muslim women, which partially or fully covers the face. It doesn't prohibit hijabs, headscarves, turbans or the Jewish kippa.

The law allows people to cover their face when there is a “recognizable purpose” like cold weather or complying with other legal requirements, such as using motorcycle helmets under Danish traffic rules. First-time offenders risk a fine of $200 . Repeat offences could trigger fines of up to $2060 or a jail sentence of up to six months.

One provision that's different from laws in place elsewhere in Europe is that anyone forcing a person to wear garments covering the face by using threats or physical force can be fined or face up to two years in prison. This provision is superfluous, IMHO, because everyone knows that under Sharia law, women are completely free to make up their own minds about what to wear or not wear. To suggest otherwise is clearly Islamophobic!

Further reading:
"Strong Majority of Brits Back Burqa Ban", Breitbart News, 31/5/18. Spoiler alert! "A significant [perecentage of Britons polled] said Islam, in general, is not compatible with the British way of life." Well, DUH!
"Why the Danes are the happiest people in the world", WWW 17/3/2016.

Québec dad beats daughter for not wearing Islamic head covering

What's a good "Muslim Canadian" girl to do? If she lives in Québec and covers her face with a niqab (or, Allah help her, a burqa) while being served at a library, she could get into trouble with the Law. See "Québec enacts law banning face coverings in public places", WWW 17/10/17. If she doesn't cover her face, or at least her hair, with proper Islamic dress, i.e. a hijab, she could get beaten... or worse... by her father and/or brothers for bring dishonour upon their family.

Buried in the back pages of today's lamestream media is a sad little story from Gatineau, Québec, just across the river from the capital of Canuckistan. A Muslim man has been charged for (allegedly) beating his teenage daughter over the course of more than a year because she refused to wear a hijab. According to Inspector Clouseau [Ed., please check name] of the Gatineau police, the 35-year-old follower of the Prophet is facing one count each of assault, assault with a weapon and uttering death threats.

In what police described as a case of so-called "honour-based" violence, the father began the series of assaults upon learning his daughter had removed her religious head covering when she left the family home. Gatineau police said they hope the courage the young girl showed would motivate others to speak out against similar incidents.

Walt would add that any daughter, sister or wife being abused by her too-strict Islamic father, brother or husband had better speak up right sharpish, before she suffers the fate of the late Aqsa Parvez, of Mississauga ON, who was killed by her father (with help from her brother) just over five years ago for... wait for it... taking off her hijab when she went to school. See "Parents kill rebellious teen to preserve family honour", WWW 3/8/12.

Further reading: If you're still not sure of the difference between the three types of Islamic head-coverings, check out "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10.

Québec enacts law banning face coverings in public places

If they live in Québec, these women might well start looking over their shoulders, keeping their eyes (only) open for the long arm of the law, for starting soon they will be in violation of a law requiring Québec people who give or receive any public service to uncover their faces.

Bill 62, which Walt thinks might well be called the Open Face Law, was passed by the National Assembly (legislature) last week. It applies to all provincial ministries, school boards, universities, public health care institutions, subsidized day care centres, municipalities, and public transit authorities.

Also covered (or uncovered, if you'll forgive the pun) are doctors, dentists and midwives. So if you're in a doctor's office, no matter whether you're the doctor or the patient, take off that veil! Walt wonders if there's an exception for surgical masks. There should be no problem for dental patients, though. How could you get your teeth cleaned with your face covered? [I've always wondered about that too. Maybe Muslim women don't go to the dentist? Ed.]

Bill 62 details under what circumstances employers and schools should refuse requests for time off for religious reasons. It would also bar taxpayer-subsidized daycares from teaching children specific religious beliefs.

The fundamental principle of Bill 62 is the duty of religious neutrality which is considered necessary in a society which is determined to be an exemplar of secular humanism. This is a 180-degree turn from the Québec of old, of the days before the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, when the teachings of the (pre-Vatican II) Church established the norms of morality and propriety for Canada's most Catholic province.

The secular values of the New Québec were set out back in 2013 in the Charter of Québec Values proposed by the Parti Québecois, which was then in power, in response to the anger of old stock Québecois over religious accommodation -- the PC notion that Canadians should had to adapt to the social and religious customs of non-Christian (read: Muslim) immigrants. The PQ was defeated in the next provincial election, but in 2015 similar legislation was introduced by the new Liberal government as Bill 62.

Although Bill 62 doesn't mention the niqab or burqa specifically, Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée said that, since the law will apply to municipalities, metropolitan communities and public transit organizations. anyone who rides a bus or the Métro (subway) must be unveiled. Mme Vallée told CBC Montreal's Daybreak yesterday that a woman who normally wears a burqa or niqab would have to show her face for the duration of her ride, "as long as the service is being rendered."

Beyond the face-covering ban, the Bill 62 sets out broad limits for all requests for religious accommodation. It says a request has to be "serious", respect the right to equality between men and women and "the right of every person to be treated without discrimination." Opposition to the legislation has come chiefly from the members of one religious group. Walt will leave you to guess which religion that is. Hint: It's one of the three Abrahamic religions... the newest one of the three... Geddit?

Further reading:
"Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10.
"Nobody likes the Charter of Québec Values...except the people!", WWW 23/1/14.

Anti-immigrant backlash grows across Europe

While I was away [Watch this space for "Tales from Down East". Ed.], Agent 17 sent along the link to "'Enlightenment values': Austria enacts anti-burqa & compulsory integration law", RT News 9/6/17. "Enlightenment values" strikes me as a good phrase. What are those values? They must be the "values" -- a loaded word for the progressive do-good wienies -- which "enlightened" people share and hold dear. "Enlightened" is nowadays equated, quite properly, with the word "civilized". (See the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

Enlightened civilization -- European civilization -- is under threat now as never before from the hordes of unenlightened -- read Muslim -- invaders pouring into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa. Even such famously tolerant peoples as the Swedes and the Austrians are getting tired of it, and fearful of being drowned in the wave of Islamization sweeping across the continent. That's what the article is about.

Like King Canute trying to turn back the tide, the Austrian parliament has passed a law that will fine women who wear Islamic dress covering the whole face, and takes away welfare benefits from immigrants who fail to learn the language. It says, remarkably frankly, that "those who are not prepared to accept Enlightenment values will have to leave our country and society."

According to the law, women will face a fine of €150 ($168 in real money) if they wear Islamic dress, either the niqab or the burqa, in public places. In addition to the fines, all new migrants -- even the "refugees" and asylum-seekers -- coming to Austria will now be forced, if they want to suck on the public tit [receive welfare benefits, surely! Ed.] to take a 12-month "integration course" that includes German language lessons.

But wait (as Vince Offer used to say), there's more! The new law also makes it illegal for newcomers to distribute "incendiary materials". Migrants will also be encouraged to volunteer -- do unpaid community work -- to prepare them for life in the workplace, before acquiring permanent work permits. Good luck with that one.

Austria's latest attempt to integrate new immigrants has come in response to the migrant crisis rocking most European countries. At least 90,000 migrants, mostly from Muslim-majority countries outside Europe, have arrived in Austria since 2015. Nothing like the hundreds of thousands who've entered Germany, but still you have to hand it to the Austrians for trying to do something about the problem before it's too late. Oh... wait....

Meanwhile... Virginia Raggi, the Mayor of Rome, has asked the Italian government to stop the flow of immigrants into the Eternal City. Here's why.

This is one of several "camps" -- read "instant slums" -- which have sprung up in Rome. The unenlightened people who live here in squalor are Roma. That's the PC name for "gypsies", the people our mothers warned us would pick our pockets, steal our horses and kidnap our children. They do do those things, except maybe for the horses, of which there's a dearth in Rome, which is why, this past Tuesday, Sra Raggi asked the Italian interior ministry to suspend migrant arrivals to the capital. "I find it impossible, as well as risky," she wrote, "to think up further accommodation structures." See
Rome mayor promises to close Roma camps in the capital , The Local it, 31/5/17.

Mayor Raggi cited as reasons for the request the "strong migratory presence" in the capital and "the continued influx of foreign citizens". According to the most recent figures published by the administration, on 1 January 2016 -- nearly 18 months ago -- there were approximately 364,632 foreigners living in Rome, almost 13% of the total population.

Across Italy as a whole [Ed., please check spelling] around 8.3% of the population is foreign. In Rome, around half of the foreign population were from Europe, with Romanians -- gypsies -- making up 23.2% of the total. Although over half the 170,000 or so Roma in Italy are Italian citizens with regular jobs and houses, attacks on the ousiders are common. According to a 2015 Pew Research Centre survey, anti-Roma sentiment is significantly stronger in Italy than almost any other European country. Not hard to understand, is it?

Burqa, niqab banned in Netherlands

France has a law that effectively bans the wearing of the burqa and niqab in public. So does Belgium. Now the Netherlands is set to follow suit. (Please pardon the pun.) Lawmakers in the lower house of the Dutch parliament today approved a limited ban on "face-covering clothing".

Nothing against Muslims, you understand. The law, which still requires approval by the upper house, would cover [That's enough puns. Ed.] ski masks, full-face motorcycle helmets and, errr, Islamic robes, such as the burqa, and veils such as the niqab worn by the lady (?) in the picture. The veil makes it difficult to tell whether the person underneath is a devout Muslim lady or a devout male Islamic terrorist.

The Dutch law which passed the lower house today does not go as far as the complete bans in force (but not always enforced) in France and Belgium. It applies to the wearing of "face-covering clothing" on public transport, in educational institutions, in health institutions such as hospitals, and in government buildings.

In the debate leading up to today's vote, Interior Minister Ronald Plasterk acknowledged that public dislike of Islamic dress had played a major role in the ban. But Mr Plasterk, who is from the liberal Labour Party, said that in a free country like the Netherlands people should be allowed to appear in public with their faces covered, if they want to. But speaking out of the other side of his mouth, he added that in government buildings, schools and hospitals people need to be able to look each other in the face.

Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party, called the limited ban "a step in the right direction" and said he will push for a full burqa ban if his party wins elections due in March. Walt wonders if notice is being taken in the UK and USA. Let's see what the new year brings.

Further reading: If you're still not sure about the difference between hijabs and niqabs and burqas, please consult "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", an all-time favourite of WWW readers. Readers who still think of themselves as male (in spite of the efforts of the gender identity warriors) may also enjoy "Walt's Muslim swimsuit issue!". Warning: provocative video embedded!

VIDEO: Walt's Muslim swimsuit issue!

Coming soon to a beach near you... Yes, YOU, even if you live in Germany or France or Britain or Canada or Australia or even... horrors... the Excited States of America. Introducing the burkini, perfectly Islamic swimwear for the modest Muslim woman.

I'm talking about the one on the right. Duh. Not the typical Middle Eastern matron shape, true, but definitely the latest thing in fashions for fastidious Islamists. If you think this is a joke, check Google Images for "burkini" and you'll see hundreds of them, available online or from your local Muslim merchant.

Believe it or not, some people find this lovely beachwear offensive. This week, the mayor of Cannes, the French resort town, has announced a ban on the wearing of burkinis, for the sake of public order. Mayor David Lisnard called the burkini a "symbol of Islamic extremism". Imagine that!

The actual decree reads as follows: "Access to beaches and for swimming is banned to any person wearing improper clothes that are not respectful of good morals and secularism. Beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation, when France and places of worship are currently the target of terrorist attacks, is liable to create risks of disrupting public order."

Can you imagine any government official in the USA, Canada or Britain being so politically incorrect as to write or say such things? I thought not.

UPDATE 15/8/16: Yes! Ed. has found a video! This comes from Canada's Global TV, with a report that the mayor of a Corsican town has banned burkinis after a clash between local residents and Muslim bathers of North African origin. Ange-Pierre Vivoni, the mayor of Sisco, told France-Info radio Monday that the ban aimed at calming religious tensions and protecting Muslims.



The French Ministry of the Interior said a clash Saturday in Sisco that left at least four people injured and three cars torched reportedly started over the presence of women in burkinis. Cannes and the town of Villeneuve-Loubet also recently banned the burkini.

Further reading (for those confused about Islamic dress): "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", one of WWW's most-viewed posts.

Québec reintroduces legislation to ban wearing of niqab

In the fall of 2013, the government of the Canadian province of Québec introduced legislation which would have banned the wearing of religious headgear and other "ostentatious" religious symbols in public. See "Multiculti types horrified as Charter of Québec Values bans religious headgear".

The usual gang of secular humanists and "progressive thinkers" howled that the proposed law was Islamophobic, racist, sexist, yada yada yada. In fact, as Walt's post shows, the ban would have applied not just to headcoverings worn by Muslim women -- hijabs, niqabs, and burqas -- but to turbans and kipas worn by Sikh and Jewish men, and large Christian crosses or crucifixed which might be worn by either sex.

In spite of the outcry from the celebrators of diversity, the Charter of Québec Values had strong public support among the real people of la Belle Province, and looked like being a winning ballot question when then-Premier Pauline Marois called an election. Sadly for her (and for the Charter), rookie candidate Pierre Karl Péladeau started ranting about sovereignty and separation, and the PQ was soundly defeated by Philippe Couillard's Liberals, who had taken the position that the proposed Charter went too far, and anyway there were more important things to worry about.

Fast forward to this week. Now that the more important things have been taken care of (???), M. Couillard's government has introduced Bill 62 -- legislation which would bar Québec public servants from wearing face-covering religious garments at work, and preventing members of the public from covering their faces while receiving government services.

Isn't this the same movie, produced by the PQ, that we saw in 2013? Well, no, said Québec Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée. The "neutrality bill", as she calls it, wouldn't ban all religious symbols, and would accommodate certain symbols under certain conditions. "We don't judge people for their beliefs or absence of beliefs," she said. "We are convinced the way we are approaching this is respectful and will be a plus for society."

The formal title of Bill 62 -- click here to see the entire text in English -- is "An Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality and, in particular, to provide a framework for religious accommodation requests in certain bodies". Catchy, eh? Here's the explanatory introduction.

The purpose of this bill is to establish measures to foster adherence to State religious neutrality. For that purpose, it provides, in particular, that personnel members of public bodies must demonstrate religious neutrality in the exercise of their functions, being careful to neither favour nor hinder a person because of the person’s religious affiliation or non-affiliation. However, this duty does not apply to personnel members who, in certain bodies, provide spiritual care and guidance services or are in charge of providing instruction of a religious nature.

Under the bill, personnel members of public bodies and of certain other bodies must exercise their functions with their face uncovered, unless they have to cover their face, in particular because of their working conditions or because of occupational or task-related requirements. In addition, persons receiving services from such personnel members must have their face uncovered. An accommodation is possible but must be refused if the refusal is warranted in the context for security or identification reasons or because of the level of communication required.

The bill establishes the conditions under which accommodations on religious grounds may be granted as well as the specific elements that must be considered when dealing with certain accommodation requests.

It specifies that the measures it introduces must not be interpreted as affecting the emblematic and toponymic elements of Québec’s cultural heritage, in particular its religious cultural heritage, that testify to its history.

Lastly, special measures with respect to educational childcare services are introduced to ensure that, among other considerations, children’s admission is not related to their learning a specific religious belief, dogma or practice and that the activities organized by subsidized childcare providers do not involve learning of a religious or dogmatic nature.

Walt likes that wording a whole lot, and congratulates the legal eagles who came up with language which looks (to Agent 3) to be 99.9% human-rights-challenge-proof. Canada's Minister for Multiculturalism -- yes, they do have such a thing -- appears to agree. Tim Uppal, a Sikh gentleman never seen without his turban, told reporters yesterday, "We broadly support Québec's legislation regarding the uncovering of faces for giving and receiving public services."

In fact, he said, the federal government will introduce a similar bill just before the House of Commons takes its summer break. It's just a coincidence, of course, that Steve Harper's Tories have to pick up a lot of Québec seats in the federal election due in October. "Our government will be moving forward in the coming days with legislation with respect to the face coverings at citizenship ceremonies," Mr. Uppal said, "and we will consider what other measures may be necessary."

Fact: The only people required by their religion to cover their faces are Muslim women.

Further reading on WWW: "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?" and "'Culture wars' in Canada? Really?"

It's OK to fire an employee for wearing an Islamic veil...in France

La Cour de Cassation, France's highest court, has confirmed that a daycare centre in the Parisian suburb of Chanteloup-les-Vignes had the right to dismiss an employee who refused to remove an Islamic veil. The case that has gripped France for six years began Fatima Afif, a worker at the Baby-Loup day-care center refused to remove her headcovering. Walt can't tell from the report whether it was a hijab or niqab...surely not a burqa... Whatever it was, she wouldn't take it off, and was shown the door.

Ms Afif sued in 2010, and lost, sued again in 2011, and lost, and appealed, and lost again, as the court upheld the separation between church and state mandated by the French constitution. In its judgment, the court said "A private entity, in this case an association, can place limits on its employees' freedom to express their religious beliefs in the workplace.... Children must not be confronted with ostentatious demonstrations of religious identity."

Ms Afif's lawyer, Michel Henry, called the ruling "disappointing" and said his client will take her case to... wait for it... the European Court of Human Rights.

Walt wonders how the supreme courts of the United States, Canada or Britain -- always so mindful of "minority rights" -- would have ruled on this case. Our legal beagle, Agent 3, will be watching!

Les français patriotes marchent contre le fascisme islamique

The demonstration shown in this video was totally suppressed by the politically correct lamestream media in France and elsewhere. It has only recently received some exposure in North America through CBN via YouTube.

What you'll see here is a patriotic march, held in Paris on November 12th, in support of French culture and French (read "Christian") values and against continued Muslim immigration and Islamic fascism.



Aux musulmans et ceux qui crient "Célébrons la diversité", ces patriotes français disent: Si vous souhaitez vivre sous la charia avec des voiles et du halal, allez donc vivre dans un pays musulman. Ils sont nombreux: Iran, Irak, Egypte, Afghanistan. Vous avez l'embarras du choix. Mais laissez la France aux français!

Let it be remembered that the Islamization of France was predicted back in 1959 by the greatest Frenchman of the 20th century, Charles De Gaulle. See "Charles De Gaulle warns about Muslim immigration", published here in August, and consistently in our top five most-read list ever since.

A bit of trivia: Vexillologists (people who study flags) will recognize la Croix de Lorraine on one of the flags displayed near the end of the video. 

Being de-hijabbed better than winning lottery for KC woman

As Walt has explained before in "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", the hijab -- as shown here -- is the basic or minimum headcovering for a modest Muslim woman. Head hair is considered more private than, errr, other hair. I guess. Add a veil over the forehead and face, and you've got a niqab. Cover everything up, and that's the burqa. But the hijab is the minimum.

If you're a Muslim woman, having your head and hair suddenly uncovered would be shocking, shameful and stressful. Especially if you're a convert, as is Susann Bashir, a former resident of Kansas City, now en route to Anchorage with $5 million in her pocket (potentially), thanks to a jury that awarded her that sum (and more) in a lawsuit she brought against AT&T.

According to her claim, Ms Bashir had worked as a fibre optics network builder at AT&T’s Kansas City plant for ten years before being fired. Sadly, almost immediately after she converted to Islam in 2005, the workplace environment became hostile. Ms Bashir claimed she endured religious discrimination nearly every day of her last three years at ATT. For example, she was called a "towelhead" and a "terrorist", and was asked if she was going to blow up the building.

What really hurt though, she said, was her co-workers referring to her hijab as "that thing on her head". "I was shocked," she told the Kansas City Star. "I thought, what is going on? Nobody ever cared what I wore before. Nobody ever cared what religion I was before."

Everything came to a head [Watch it! Ed.] in 2008 when her boss snatched her hijab, exposing her hair. This was after she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC duly launched an investigation, her co-workers got angry, and that led to the final encounter with her boss.

Ms Bashir then asked that her boss be removed or that she be transferred, but neither happened. Thus she became so stressed out, according to her claim, that she was unable to work for, errr, nine months, after which she was fired for some reason.

AT&T says it disagrees with the verdict and will be appealing. [As if AT&T could ever be appealing! Ed.]

Footnote: Ms Bashir is unlikely to collect the entire $5 million in punitive damages, as Missouri law caps such awards at five times the actual damages, which in this case amounted to just over $120,000. So that's about 600 large for Ms Bashir. Plus costs, of course. Better than winning the lottery, says Walt!

Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?

Ladies (?) wearing burqas

While visiting a tourist hotspot earlier this summer, Walt and the Mrs noticed some people covered in cloth from head to toe, in spite of 90-degree heat.

"What are they?" Mrs Walt wanted to know, "and why are they wearing those sheets?"

Walt replied that they were most likely strict Muslim women and that they were "those sheets" as a religious observance. I said "most likely" because you can't tell if they're women or men, which is one of the reasons for demands to ban the wearing of such dress -- to avoid terrorists disguising themselves and then wreaking havoc.

The dress in question is called the burqa, and for those who have always wanted to know the difference between the burqa, the niqab and the hijab, Walt will now explain.

The burqa, shown above, is the most concealing of all Islamic veils. It covers the entire body from head to toe, with just a small piece of mesh covering the eyes allowing the wearer to see out, as if through a cage.

The niqab is a veil for the face that leaves the eyes uncovered. It is commonly worn in much of the Middle East, and increasingly in Europe and North America as the number of Muslims here keeps growing. Recent demands that Muslim ladies remove the veil for identification purposes, for instance when voting or registering for something, have been called "racist" and "Islamophobic" by the usual gang of leftist human rights whiners.

The hijab is a square scarf covering head and neck, so as to conceal the hair but not the face. It is the most common style worn by Muslim women in the West.

Are the burqa and its milder variants symbols of devotion to Islam or symbols of the oppression of women? Does it matter? If someone wants to wear a particular uniform or costume or dress, a true libertarian would say, let them.

But when the manner of dress conflicts with the values of mainstream society, perhaps that's another matter. If someone feels like parading down the street naked, we have laws that say such undress is unacceptable.

What if someone wants to wear something which conceals their identity? Increasingly numbers of Europeans and North Americans feel this is also unacceptable.

France has banned the wearing of burqas in public. Today comes news that 54% of Canadians feel Canada should follow France's lead. A Leger Marketing online poll found anti-burqa sentiment highest in Quebec (73%) and the East (over 50% in Ontario and the Atlantic), and lowest (39%) in --you guessed it -- British Columbia.

UPDATE September 2013: If you're reading this because of the fuss about Québec's proposed Charter of Values, please read our comments "Multiculti types horrified as Charter of Québec Values bans religious headgear" and "What Québec's new Charter of Values will and will not do".

And don't be afraid to join the debate. We have a feeling that the Charter's ban on religious headgear has a lot of silent support, not just in Québec where it's clearly popular, but in the rest of Canada and other countries where people are sick of having to accommodate themselves to certain "minorities".