Québec to require immigrant wannabes to pass values test

The government of the Canadian province of Québec announced yesterday that it will require immigrants seeking permanent residency to pass a values test to ensure they understand and respect its new secularism law, the provincial government said on Wednesday.

The measure is being implemented by the Coalition d'avenir Québec (CAQ) government of Premier François Legault as part of the plan to make the province totally secular, as promised during last fall's election campaign, in which the CAQ won a majority of seats in the National Assembly. The CAQ -- a nationalist, centre-right party -- ran on a platform which included cutting immigration to the predominantly French-speaking province, in order to protect its distinct identity within the Great No-longer-white North.

The new government was quick to pass Bill C-21, a law banning public employees in positions of authority wearing religious symbols such as Muslim hijabs and Jewish kippahs to work. The values test is intended to make sure that potential immigrants understand that law and its implications, M Legault told reporters on Wednesday. "I think it's important in Québec", he said, "because we are a nation, we are a distinct society, we have our values, we have our charter."

Bill C-21 has been roundly condemned by left-wing human rights activists, both internationally and in the rest of Canaada as infringing on "minority rights", especially the rights of the, errr, Muslim minority. A recent poll showed that over 70% of Québéclois support the law, but what the majority thinks is, of course, irrelevant. During this month's federal election campaign, the leaders of all the federal parties except the Bloc Québécois (the federal version of the provincial Parti Québécois) and Maxime Bernier's People's Party of Canada spoke out against C-21. Strangely, though, none of them went so far as to show support for a court challenge against the law. Mr Socks, however, said he'd think about it.

Premier Legault described the test as similar to one that exists at the federal level, where individuals applying for Canadian citizenship must pass a test on Canada's history and laws, among other topics. An individual must score at least 75% to pass the new Québec test that covers "democratic values and the Québec values expressed by the (Québec) Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms," the government's official publication said. The test will apply only to economic immigrants and their families, not "refugees". So if you cross the open border with the USA illegally, you can keep your hijab or turban on.

Footnote: The green, white and red flag seen in the picture above is not one of the many Arab flags using those colours in a pattern of horizontal bars. It is le Drapeau des Patriotes (avec Le Vieux de '37). I leave it to interested readers to find out what the flag symbolizes. Any resemblance to the Confederate Battle Flag is purely coincidental.

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.

Walt explains the link between events in Hong Kong and Québec

The events of yesterday and today on two opposite sides of the world say something (to those who are paying attention) about the natural desire of "nations" (in the French sense of the word) to protect their culture and identity when threatened with submersion in a larger multicultural society.

At 0400 EDT on Sunday, Québec's National Assembly -- note the term -- passed, not without opposition, Bill 9, which sets out the framework for a Québec values test that all immigrant wannabes will need to pass in order to become permanent residents of la Belle Province. The new law allows the government to cancel some 18,000 applications to immigrate.

The opposition Liberals complained that since putting Bill 9 on the table in February, the Québec government has provided "no credible explanation" for doing that, but the province's Immigration Minister argued that "We are changing the immigration system in the public interest, because we have to make sure that we have an immigration tied to the needs of the labour market."

What does that mean? The opposition whines that the new test will discriminates against prospective immigrants from Third World shitholes, who don't speak French and don't have the European/American work ethic or experience. Being a truck driver in the Punjab or a street vendor in the Congo won't count for much, it seems. Nor will wanting time off to observe religious holy day.

Which brings us to another proposed law, Bill 21, which will come to a vote later today or tomorrow, since closure has been invoked to end any further argy-bargy over what has been nicknamed "the Secularism Bill" or, more tellingly, "the anti-Muslim Bill". Bill 21 is a proposed ban on the display of religious symbols in the public service, included in the proposesd Charter of Québec Values, which Québeckers have been fighting for (or against) for donkey's years.

Under the new law, anyone giving or receiving public-sector services must not display any headgear or other accessories or symbols of any religion. That includes Jewish and Christian symbols like the kippah and the crucifix, but critics whine that the clear target is Muslim women who wear the hijab, niqab or burqa. (If you're not sure what these things are, see "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10.)

Last Wednesday, the National Assembly spent more than an hour going over just one phrase — "in fact and in appearance" — in the religious symbols bill. Minority groups, legal experts, SJWs, multiculti types and (of course) United Nations human rights monitors have expressed concern that Bill 21 will institutionalize discrimination and... wait for it... racism. Be that as it may, the new régime was one of the main planks of the CAQ election platform, and Québécois voted for it, overwhelmingly, last fall. Now they're going to get what they voted for. Imagine that!

Meanwhile, in "Fragrant Harbour" (aka Hong Kong) today, hundreds of thousands took to the streets again today as the Umbrella Revolution (v.2) continues. On Saturday (local time) it appeared that the pro-Beijing puppet government of the former British colony had caved, as Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced that an extradition bill that would allow some suspects to be sent for trial in mainland China had been "suspended indefinitely". But, the pro-democracy demonstrators say, that's not the same as "withdrawn altogether and forever".

Tens of thousands of Hong Kong residents, mostly clad in black, jammed the city's streets Sunday in a vehement show of opposition to proposed legislation that has stoked fears of expanding control from Beijing. They carried signs reading "Hong Kong is not China!", and that is precisely the issue. When the perfidious British handed the colony over to the Communist Chinese in 1997, the Reds pledged that Hong Kong's "special status" would allow it to keep the Western legal, electoral and social systems and values which had been in place for over a century. Yeah... sure...

The marchers, who numbered over a million earlier last week, are demanding that Hong Kong's leader first scrap the proposed extradition law, then resign. Last week the peaceful protests degenerated into violent clashes with the police, who fired rubber bullets and teargas at the unarmed (except for umbrellas) demonstrators. Several protesters were injured and scores were arrested, in the toughest test of the territory's special status since the Communists took control.

The link between these events is that both betoken the determination of citizens of a part of a larger whole to assert their autonomy, especially when it comes to "values". "Hong Kong is not China!", its people cry, and Québécois said (in French, of course) in last October's election "Québec is not Canada!" They are both examples of a "distinct society", a loaded phrase which carries with it -- if the larger society, China or Canada, denies the special status and rights of the smaller one -- the threat of separation, perhaps even peaceful or not-so-peaceful revolution.

Majority of Québécois want crucifix displayed in National Assembly, religious headgear banned in public sector

During September's provincial election campaign, the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) vowed, if elected, to end once and for all the pandering to minorities that kept both the Liberals and the Parti Québécois from passing lawas to prohibit the display in public places of religious objects, including religious clothing, such as the Jewish kippah, Sikh turban and Muslim burqa/niqab/hijab. Banning such things was, they said, the will of the majority of Québécois, and sure enough, the people of la belle province gave the CAQ a strong mandate.

Ever since, the usual NPCs, SJWs and liberal chattering classes -- not your typical francophone Québeckers, but English speakers -- have been pissing and moaning about "minority rights", Islamophobia, and (of course) racism. Such discriminatory legislation, they whine, is not in keeping with real Québec values, and the election result didn't really reflect the will of the people.

The lamestream meeja and others hired a couple of pollsters to give Québeckers another chance to come up with the politically correct answers to a couple of decades-old questions:
Do you support a ban on the wearing of religious symbols by public-sector workers? and
Should the crucifix be removed from its place of honour above the Speaker's throne in the Assemblée Nationale?
You'll never guess how the real people responded...

Or maybe you will. A CROP poll taken from the 14th to 19th of November estimated that 72% of Québécois supported banning visible religious symbols for judges, 71% supported banning them for prosecutors and police officers, and 65% backed extending the ban to public-school teachers. CROP also found widespread support (55%) for leaving the crucifix in its place in the National Assembly; only 28% wanted to see it removed.

CROP's president told Radio-Canada (the French-language state broadcaster) that the results indicated unprecedentedly high levels of support for banning religious symbols. "I think we can conclude that the average Quebecer really wants to remove religion from the public sphere," he said, "especially for people who hold positions of authority.... The numbers are high but they are the product of a public discussion that has lasted since Bouchard-Taylor," he said, referring to the public commission into reasonable accommodation that wrapped up in 2008.

In the month after the October 1st election, Vox Pop, which polls for the CBC and Radio-Canada, surveyed 4000 people about identity issues. Respondents were shown images of various types of religious clothing and symbols and asked to choose different situations where they should be banned. The results suggested no less than 87% (!) in favour of preventing police officers and judges from wearing the burqa. If you're not sure what that is, check out "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10.

The number in favour of a ban dropped to only 65% for the turban and kippa. The Vox Pop findings also suggested Québeckers are divided about what religious symbols teachers should be allowed to wear in the classroom. The kippah was opposed by 49%, the turban by 51%, the hijab by 52% a large cross by 53%. Vox Pop summarized its findings by noting that a majority of survey participants -- 55% -- backed the Bouchard-Taylor consensus referred to above.

Tomorrow, the National Assembly begins its first session. The CAQ government has indicated that introducing a bill to replace the previous government's Bill 62 (which was never enforced) would not be its first order of business, but that it would tackle the issue early in the new year, confident that it is doing the will of the people of Québec.

Footnote: The burqa and other Islamic attire has already been banned in the Netherlands, Denmark and even Muslim-majority Morocco. The Québec government is behind the curve of public opinion on this one, but not so much as the government of Canada, which refuses to discuss the issue, let alone admit that the majority of Canadians would support such legislation. M-103.

Canuck university offers "emergency hijab kit"

In spite of the incessant repetition of the "Diversity is our strength" mantra by Prime Minister Justin "Junior" Trudeau, Canadians appear to be just as resistant as Americans to the seemingly irreversible browning of the Great No-longer-white North. In Halifax NS, opposition to the Islamization of Canada allegedly manifests itself in the harassment of Muslim (and wannabe Muslim) women who wear the hijab.

So says Amina Ajawaby, pictured, wearing her hijab at left. Ms Ajawaby is president of the Dalhousie University Student Union, which is now offering "emergency hijab kits" to anyone whose hijab is ripped off (literally) by racist, Islamophobic Canucks, or who fear such an outrage might happen but decide to wear the Islamic headgear anyway.

For that matter, anyone who just wants a hijab to carry around in her (or his?) purse, as a form of virtue-signalling or proteest, can call Dalhousie security services -- seriously -- which will deliver a kit to them anywhere on campus. The kits include a piece of fabric, pins, a small guide on how to wrap the hijab and important numbers for reporting such hate crimes.

The kit, sponsored by the Dalhousie Student Union (Amina Ajawaby, prop.) and the pro-diversity Nova Scotia Public Interest Research Group, was launched last week after "many students" said they were concerned for their safety following the shooting earlier this year at a Québec City mosque. No incidents of violence have actually been reported in Halifax, but Ms Ajawaby said she previously was told of cases on campus and off. "I don't know if they have been necessarily reported, but just by being a member of the Muslim community, people have come to me and let me know."

Burqas banned in... you'll never guess!

Just saw, on the Agence France Press website, what promises to be the most incredible story of the month, if not the entire year. After considerable debate, a national government has banned the importation and sale of burqas. Completely. In their entire country. For those who don't know what a burqa is, it's the ultra-Islamic garment for women that covers the entire body, from the top of the head right down to the ground. That includes the face, only a small "window" being left (albeit screened) so the wearer can see where she (or he) is going.

The country is... this is the incredible part... Morocco! Morocco has a population of nearly 34 million people, almost as big as Canada. 99% of Moroccans are Muslims, unlike Canada where only 98% are Muslims. [Ed., please check those numbers.] So why, you may ask, would the government of a predominantly Muslim country risk offending so many voters by proscribing the ultimate Islamic fashions? Walt will explain.

First of all, Morocco is a monarchy, and elections are not quite as free and fair as they are in, say, Cook County IL. Secondly, in Muslim countries, freedom of religion and freedom of expression aren't guaranteed by law. Quite the opposite, in fact. Thirdly, and most important, the Moroccan government is worried about security. It's that "she (or he)" in the first paragraph that prompted the burqa ban.

You can't tell what's under the damn things. It could be a sultry voluptuous Muslim woman, like the ones you see in the streets of Kabul every day. Or it could be a Mohammed with a beard and an AK-47. Or either of them, with half a dozen sticks of dynamite strapped to his/her torso. See "A good reason to ban the burqa", WWW 4/11/13.

The AFP story quotes a spokesthingy for the Moroccan Ministry of the Interior as saying "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".)

In fact, not that many Moroccan women wear the burqa. Most of them prefer the hijab, a headscarf that doesn't cover the face. The niqab, which leaves the area around the eyes uncovered, is worn in Salafist circles and in more conservative regions in the north, from where 1000s of jihadists have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq. A Salafist preacher condemned "the Satan-worshippers" and "atheists serving the interests of the Jews" who, he said, were behind the burqa ban.

So there you have it. A 99% Muslim country bans the burqa to deter "bandits" or "terrorists" or whatever you want to call them. What are the chances of that happening in North America? In the USA (as of January 21st), chances are slim. In Justin Trudeau's Not-so-Great, Not-so-white North (see previous post), the chances are... none at all.

Further reading: Still not sure about the difference between the burqa, the niqab and the hijab? Read "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", [Great title! Ed.] WWW 28/7/10.

Merkel does a big 180 on "refugees", Muslim headgear

Amazing news from Essen, Germany, where Angela Merkel's governing Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is holding a party congress this week. Chancellor Merkel announced last week that she would be running for a fourth four-year term in an election expected next September. But first she must be chosen to lead her party for another two-year term.

German public opinion polls and lamestream media assure Frau Merkel that she's a shoo-in, in spite of widespread grumbling about her "Willkomenskultur" policy, under which millions of "refugees" and asylum-seekers, most of them Muslims, have been admitted to Das Vaterland, where they have committed numerous acts of rape, terrorism, and general ingratitude.

Frau Merkel is a political survivor, not foolish enough to trust the polls and the media. In a speech today, she announced that she would take steps to prevent a repeat of last year's huge influx of Muslim invaders. And... wait for it... she advocated banning burqas and niqabs -- the full-face veils used by some Muslim women -- "where possible".

She told the CDU congress that her immediate priority is to make sure a crisis-shaken Europe doesn't get any weaker. Germany will continue to take in people in genuine need of protection, she said, but her government has moved to toughen asylum rules and declare several countries "safe", meaning that people coming from those places can't expect to get refugee status and all the cash and other benefits that go with it. Furthermore, Frau Merkel told delegates, "parallel societies" won't be tolerated. "In communication between people, which is of course essential to our living together, we have to show our faces, so the full veil should be forbidden wherever legally possible."

Isn't it strange that Angela Merkel can say things like that and be applauded, yet when Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders says the same things, he gets called a racist! But hey, the lower house of the Dutch parliament voted just a few days ago to ban Islamic headgear, as has also been done by France and Belgium, so it would appear that Frau Merkel is simply catching up. The USA and (especially) Canada may take somewhat longer.

Further reading: "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10.

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!

French leader calls for ban on religious headgear and symbols in all public places

Citing the need to combat Islamist extremism, Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s Front National, has called for the country's ban on religious symbols and garb in schools to be extended to all public places.

She advocates the broadening of an existing law, called "the headscarf ban", that prohibits conspicuous displays of religious symbols in public schools. The banned "symbols" include religious headgear such as the hijabs, niqabs, and burqas worn by large and increasing numbers of Muslim women, not just in France but everywhere in so-called "Christian" countries. Also banned in French schools are turbans and kippahs.

Mme Le Pen added that Jewish and Christian symbols would have to be included in the ban in the name of equality and the "national interest". "I know that every French person, including Jews, can understand that if we ask for this sacrifice from them [in the framework] of the battle against the advance of Islamic extremism, they will make this effort and understand it."

In 2013 the government of Québec proposed to enact a Charter of Québec Values, which would have had provisions similar to those now advocated by Marine Le Pen. See "Multiculti types horrified as Charter of Québec Values bans religious headgear", WWW 10/9/13. They were defeated (for other reasons) in the ensuing provincial election, so the Charter was never made law. However, in June 2015, the Liberal government introduced a revised version. See "Québec reintroduces legislation to ban wearing of niqab", WWW 11/6/15. Things move slowly in Canada, and hearings on the "religious neutrality bill" started just this week.

Walt finds it interesting that it's the French -- both in Europe and North America -- who are leading the fight against Islamic extremists and the Islamization of the West. What about us "anglos"? Are we so ashamed of our Western culture and Western values that we fight for the "rights" of those who want to destroy us? I can't figure it out.

Further reading: If you're still not sure about the difference between hijabs, niqabs and burqas, check out "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10 -- one of our most-read posts of all time.

Canuck pols censor selves, avoid further debate of niqab ban

Yesterday, Walt concluded "Niqab ban becomes hot Canuck election issue" by saying that it would be amazing if the issue of whether Muslim women should be allowed to wear then niqab didn't come up again in the election debate scheduled for that evening. Within 13 seconds of the debate's end, Agent 3 was on the horn to tell me to be amazed because the word was never mentioned.

Perhaps the omission is not such a surprise after all. Walt is not a believer in conspiracy theories -- except when it comes to MH370 -- but can envision a secret pre-debate meeting in which the minions of all three parties prepared 10-foot polls with which not to touch, ever again, the question of whether immigrants should be or can be required to adapt themselves to the customs and values of their new home.

As Chantal Hébert pointed out on "At Issue" -- see video in yesterday's post -- the vast majority of Canadians think the Harper government's proposal that people should show their faces when giving or receiving any public service, including taking the oath of citizenship, is reasonable. But, the powers that be in the editorial boardrooms of Toronto deem the subject politically incorrect.

The English-language Canadian media, and the politicians chasing the large immigrant vote -- particularly in Toronto, which has the largest Muslim population of any North American city -- are so afraid of offending the Muslims, or being accused of stoking the fires of Islamophobia already burning across Canada, that they have colluded to ban any further discussion of the topic. So when the Groan and Wail headlines its lead story "Federal leaders clash over Canadian values, security in lively debate", they overlook -- deliberately -- the one glaring omission.

Not so Walt's favourite Globe and Mail columnist, Margaret Wente. In today's piece, headed "Why the niqab matters, now and in future", she writes:

If there is one issue that strikes a nerve with Canadians, this is it. Public opposition to the niqab is deep, and wide. A recently released Leger poll, commissioned by the government and conducted in March, found that more than four out of five people – 82 per cent – supported the Conservatives’ position that there is no place for niqabs in citizenship court. In Quebec, the figure was 93 per cent.

As the magnificent Chantal Hébert reminded Mr. Coyne on CBC the other night, the niqab debate is anything but trivial – despite what pundits in Toronto think. The debate about accommodation and values will last far beyond this election. It will be among the biggest issues of our future.

I'm torn. I believe that Canada is strong and confident enough to tolerate a few women in face coverings. I also believe that the niqab has no place in Canada, and that women who wear them should be strongly discouraged (but not, under most circumstances, barred) from doing so. Symbols matter. And this one matters more than most.

Footnote: Another debate, in French only, is scheduled for Friday night. The Big Three leaders -- MM Trudeau, Harper and Mulcair -- will be joined by Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Québécois, who has vowed to legislate a ban on all religious head coverings in the (unlikely) event his party is elected. At the risk of repeating myself [and being wrong two days in a row. Ed.], it will be amazing if the niqab question isn't raised, politically incorrect or not.

UPDATED: VIDEO: Niqab ban becomes hot Canuck election issue

On Thursday night, the leaders of Canada's Big Three political parties (plus the Little Two parties -- the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party) had another in what promises to be an enervating series of debates on issues which Canuck voters may care about -- or not -- come October 19th, the date set for a general election.

This debate, conducted entirely in French and aired on the French-language media with translations on some of the English channels, was supposed to cover the everything from soup (economic issues) to nuts (Canada's so-called foreign policy). Most of the two hours was taken up with MM Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau talking over each other, repeating the same talking points viewers had heard 100 times already, with Ms May and M Duceppe getting in the occasional jab.

There was only one surprise, that being the vehemence of the five minutes spent discussing (?) the question, pushed by M Duceppe (the Bloc Head), of whether Muslim women should be forced to remove the niqab -- the head-covering and facial veil worn by the more devout of them -- before taking an oath of citizenship or receiving or giving other government services.

This may seem like a small point, but it's a hot question in Québec, and only less so in TROC (The Rest Of Canada) because the ultra-PC Canuck media refuse to acknowledge that it's a sore point with non-Muslim Canadians right across the country.

The issue came to the fore earlier this month, when the Federal Court of Appeal struck down the government's rule requiring all women to show their face at citizenship ceremonies. See "Canucks try again to ban wearing niqab at citizenship ceremonies" (WWW 19/6/15). To no-one's surprise, the court found the regulation violated Muslim women's freedom of religion, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms. The ink was barely dry on the judgment before Mr Harpoon's minions announced there would be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

And so the issue was joined in the debate, with Ms May and M Trudeau clearly pandering to the Muslim minority, Mr Mulcair doing the same rather tepidly, and MM Duceppe and Harper vying to see who could out-nigger the other, as George Wallace would have put it.

In the post-debate analysis on CBC's "At Issue" segment of the national news, Andrew Coyne, who writes good columns for the National Post, expressed surprise that the election campaign had become so fixated on something that will have zero impact on nearly every single voter, a point made during the debate itself by the Greens' Ms May.

"It’s ridiculous," he said. "It’s not an issue that is germane to the future of this country. It is a trivial issue in the grand scheme of things." That brought a withering response from one of Walt's favourite Canadian pundits, Chantal Hébert, who writes for the Toronto Star. Normally Ms Hébert is cool and unflappable, but she answered Mr. Coyne's point by telling him that it was not a trivial issue to something like 75% of Canadians outside Québec who supported the idea of a ban on the niqab, according to a recent opinion poll.

We have video of the entire "At Issue" segment (running time 15:13), including clips from the debate itself, with voice-over in English. The heated exchange between Ms Hébert and Mr. Coyne starts at 5:45 and ends at 9:50 -- about a minute less than the time spent on the issue in the debate itself.



As for the polls to which Ms. Hébert refers, Maclean's tell us that one, conducted in March by Forum Research, found that 67% of Canadians oppose the wearing of niqabs during citizenship ceremonies. An Ipsos poll found a whopping 88% support for the government’s stance. A Leger survey, commissioned by the Privy Council Office over the winter but not released until last week, tallied similar results: 82% in favour of the no-niqab policy.

The Big Three leaders will appear in another debate this evening, ostensibly on questions of foreign policy. It will be amazing if the niqab issue doesn't arise, less amazing if MM Mulcair and Trudeau, having read the numbers, find ways to alter their views to be more in line with those of their countrymen/women/persons.

Further reading:
"Niqab debate leading to wider discussion on religious, cultural accommodation": Chantal Hébert in the Toronto Star.
"The niqab: Trivial politics, or election difference-maker?": Michael Friscolanti in Maclean's.

UPDATE (30/9/15) from Ed.: We're still catching up from Walt's absence over the weekend. Turns out that the afternoon before the debate referred to above, the Harper government released a poll, kept secret until now, showing strong support for banning the niqab at citizen ceremonies. Click here to read the report on CBC News.  

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?"

Nobody likes the Charter of Québec Values...except the people!

The proposed Charter of Québec values has rung the bell of the lamestream media and the chattering classes, both in la Belle Province and in TROC (The Rest of Canada). Those calling it "racist", "anti-Muslim", and "unhelpful" -- you know the list of epithets -- include the Federation of Québec School Boards, the association representing the province's health care industry, and even the Québec Bar Association, which says the Charter will certainly be challenged in the courts.

What's really causing those who celebrate diversity to soil their silkies is the possibility that the Parti Québecois -- presently a minority government -- will call a snap election with the Charter (and only that) as the ballot question. Latest polls put the PQ in first place (ahead of the Liberals), with 36% of decided voters likely to back them. If polling day results reflect those numbers, the PQ would be returned with a majority.

Why? Because the real people of Québec -- even in the "culturally diverse" Montréal region -- overwhelmingly support the proposal. On Monday, a Léger poll found that that 60% Québecois back the Charter. Among the crucial francophone voters, that number rises to just short of 70%!

It's real people -- like the Pineault-Caron family, from the Saguenay town of Sacré-Coeur -- who are speaking out against religious and cultural "accommodation", meaning the stealthy Islamization of their heretofore white Christian society. The video of part of their testimony about the upsetting sights and sounds of Islam they suffered during their travels in Morocco and Turkey — and their conclusion that it is "unthinkable" to allow people in such "disguises" to roam around in public in Québec — became a YouTube sensation, registering over 300,000 hits so far.

Some Québecois see the charter as little more than an electoral ploy. The pundits and "progressive thinkers" of the anglophone media accuse the PQ of playing the "politics of division", to get back the francophone vote they lost to the Coalition Avenir Quebec in the last election. If that's the plan, it's working; the Leger poll says support for the CAQ is down 10 points from the 2012 election.

What about a court challenge, if the Charter is enacted? For the liberals and diversity-lovers, the wish will almost certainly be father to the thought and grandfather to court challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Such action would bring the whole issue of diversity and "accommodation" not just to the Supreme Court of Canada (ultimately) but to the attention of the real people in TROC. According to Walt's Canuck agents, there are a great many -- outside of Toronto, the font of all evil -- who would be happy to see a similar law in force all over the Great Not-so-white North.

Further reading on WWW: "What Québec's new Charter of Values will and will not do"

UPDATED: Muslim's girl's private Facebook photo!

This started out as a joke, see. Ed. found a picture of a Muslim woman (?) wearing a burqa, and said to me, "I guess all their Facebook profile pages look like this." Ha ha. So we put it up.

Then last night, while tidying up my library, I found this book, which I can't recall reading. I must have bought it [or stolen it. Ed.] and put it away for future reference. So I'm referring to it now. [Geddit? Ed.]

Sold, by Zana Muhsen (with ghostie Andrew Crofts) is "one woman's true account of modern slavery". (That's what it says on the cover.) It was published by Warner Books in 1991.

According to the summary on the back cover, the author -- 15 years old at the time -- and her still younger sister, Nadia, born in Birmingham, England, were asked by their folks if they'd like to go on a holiday to visit relatives in northern Yemen. To the innocent girls, it sounded like the trip of a lifetime.

Those who know a bit about Islam and the countries of the Arabian peninsula will not be surprised to learn that the girls' father had sold them into marriage! Once they arrived in the sandpit, they were held virtual prisoners in primitive stone houses, with shit-plastered walls and no running water. They were subjected to beatings, rape and "the terrifying ordeal of childbirth on bare mud floors with only old women in attendance".

This went on for eight years, and the book is the story of how they escaped what is, sadly, "normal life" for young women in countries bound by the feudal barbarism of Sharia law. Is it still like this for Muslim women, a quarter of a century later? Answers on the back of a postage stamp, please, to the usual address.

See also: "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?"

Survey says... lots of Canucks biased against Jews, Muslims, Sikhs etc

Whoda thunk it? Canadians, always so smug about being tolerant and inclusive, celebrating diversity and all that BS, secretly dislike certain minority groups. That would include those they can recognize by their religious headgear and facial shrubbery.

After the Parti Québecois got the "conversation" started by proposing a Charter of Québec Values, it was inevitable that the public opinion pollsters would ask people -- in both la Belle Province and TROC -- how they felt about the accommodation of religious and ethnic minority cultures. That's what the fuss is all about -- whether it's time for the multiculti tail to stop wagging the Québec and/or Canadian dogs.

Today's National Post reports the results of a Forum poll on multiculturalism. The results may be dismaying to the "progressive thinkers" who dominate Canadian media and politics, but should hardly come as a surprise to anyone who listens to the conversations at Tim Horton's.

Turns out that about half of Bloc Québecois and Parti Québecois supporters think that Muslims and Jews have too much influence in their province, while nearly a third of British Columbians think the same of "Sikhs and Asians". [Aren't Sikhs Asians? Or do they mean Chinese? I'm confused! Ed.]

That sentiment is particularly pronounced in Québec -- exactly what Pauline Marois is counting on -- but the rest of Canada (TROC) isn't far behind, with about a third of Canadians saying Muslims have too much influence in their home provinces. Hey, Steve Harper! Hey, Jason Kenney! Are you listening? See? It's not just a few rednecks in Mississauga or Surrey.

Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff told the Post, “If the Charter of Quebec Values is an example of the Parti Québecois practising dog whistle politics...it appears there are plenty of ears tuned to that particular frequency for the message to fall on.”

Speaking of Jews, while less than a fifth of Canadians say that Jews have too much influence, about 32% of Quebeckers think they are too powerful. Canada's largest and strongest community of orthodox Jews is to be found in Montréal. Not long ago a Jewish school in that city was successful in getting the neighbouring YMCA to paint over its windows so the innocent Jewish kids would be spared the sight of scantily clad goyim playing basketball.

In Ontario, it's the francophones -- French speakers, to non-Canadian readers -- who are on the merdeux end of the stick, with 26% of respondents saying the Frenchies [Good job on avoiding the other "Fr" word. Ed] are too powerful. You certainly don't hear the language of Molière much in places like Kingston and Kitchener.

The poll was conducted by Interactive Voice Response on September 16th and 17th among a randomly selected sample of 1527 Canadians 18 years of age and older. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3%, 19 times out of 20. Walt guesses you could call the poll a cross section of Canadian public opinion. No hyphen.

Accept Québec values, black PQ minister warns immigrants

Ouais, Virginie, there are black people in Québec. One such is Maka Kotto, a former politician from Caméroun (a.k.a. Cameroon -- it's in Africa) who immigrated to Canada in 1990 and eventually drifted into, errr, politics. No surprise there. Now he's the current Minister of Tokenism [Culture and Communications, shurely! Ed.] in the Parti Québecois government.

That's the government that has just introduced a Charter of Québec values. If it becomes law, it will ban the wearing of religious headgear and other "overt" religious symbols -- a large crucifix, for example -- in any public workplace in la Belle Province.

Even though he's an immigrant and a vizmin, M Kotto agrees with the proposed charter. He told the Globe and Mailthat when he moved to France, he had to leave in Africa the panther's head that he used to wear on his chest.

Walt wouldn't kid you. M Kotto described himself to the interviewer as a “Catholic, with shamanistic tendencies”. Sounds typical of a member of the modern Church, but I digress. He was describing how "if I wanted to play the mystic, I could go around with my panther’s head on my chest. It’s my family totem. But I don’t, because I adhere to what are accepted as the values of the society that welcomed me.”

As the Assemblée Nationale resumed sitting yesterday, M Kotto said the Charter “applies to me too. When people arrive in a new family, the least we can do is to consider the values of the family and accept their values.”

And that's really the point. It's not that the sight of hijabs and turbans and Muslims praying in the streets makes Québecois see red [orange, surely. Ed.], although it does. The point is that people who choose to move into a land and culture which is not their own should make an effort to conform -- in public at least -- to the norms of that land and culture.

No matter what the lamestream media and the "experts" tell you, that's the majority opinion in America, Australia, Britain and Canada. Multiculturalism is contrary to human nature, and the "intellectuals", "progressives" and politicians who are forcing the wind of "diversity" down our throats will surely reap the whirlwind. Walt is telling you so.

What Québec's new Charter of Values will and will not do

There's a lot of chatter about the Charter of Québec Values proposed today by that province's government. Many of the chatterers obviously have not read the document or have not paid attention to the details. (That's where the devil is!) CBC News has published a helpful article listing five (5) things the Charter would and would not do. Here's the list.

Would
1.Bar public sector employees — including everyone from civil servants to teachers, provincial court judges, daycare workers, police, health-care personnel, municipal employees and university staff — from wearing a hijab, turban, kippa, large visible crucifix or other "ostentatious" religious symbols while on the job.
2.Allow five-year opt-outs from the ban for certain organizations, but not daycare workers or elementary school teachers.
3.Require that those receiving or providing government services uncover their faces.
4.Exempt elected members of the Quebec legislature from the regulations.
5.Amend Quebec's human rights legislation, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, to specify limits on when someone can stake a claim for religious accommodation.

Wouldn't
1.Remove religious symbols and elements considered "emblematic of Quebec's cultural heritage." That includes: the crucifixes in the Quebec legislature and atop Mount Royal in Montreal, the thousands of religiously based geographic names (e.g. Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!) and the names of schools and hospitals.
2.Ban public sector employees from wearing small religious symbols like a ring with a Star of David, earrings with the Muslim crescent or a necklace with a small crucifix.
3.Eliminate subsidies to religious private schools. The Quebec government currently funds about 60 per cent of the budgets of most of the province's private schools, including parochial ones.
4.Ban opening prayers at municipal council meetings, which was recommended by the 2008 Bouchard-Taylor Commission report into cultural accommodation. The Quebec Court of Appeal ruled in May that such prayers do not necessarily violate Quebec's current human rights legislation.
5.Eliminate property tax exemptions for churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious buildings.

I have emphasized the words "receiving or providing" in the third "would". That's a very sharp hook in the tackle box. It means if you go to get your driver's licence renewed, or get your welfare cheque, or get a flu shot, you'll have to take off your kipa/turban/hijab/whatever. At least, that's the way I read it.

One last very important comment. Patrick Lagacé, writing in the Globe and Mail, predicts that the Charter will never be enacted. If it is made law, "progressive thinkers" are calling on the federal government to challenge its constitutionality in the courts, and Steve Harper's bumboy, the Hon. Jason Kenney has said that will be done.

So why is the Parti Québecois bringing this controversial bill forward? Simple, says M Lagacé. The PQ, being a minority government, could face an election at any time. They are shit scared they're going to lose, so they're playing to the unspoken but deeply felt wishes of the majority of the Québec electorate. 65% of those asked in a survey taken over the weekend say they approve of the Charter -- an idea whose time has come, no matter what the multicultists say.

Multiculti types horrified as Charter of Québec Values bans religious headgear

What's the difference between a hijab, a niqab and a burqa? If you're a woman working in any part of Québec's public sector, the answer is: none whatever. When you go to work, leave your religious headgear at home.

So says the Charter of Québec Values, introduced today by the separatist government of La Belle Province. Also verboten -- oops, défendu -- are yarmulkes, turbans and kirpans. The special underpants that religious Sikh men wear are OK, because they are not "overt religious symbols". By the same token, Christians can wear a small cross or crucifix, but not a large one. Small earrings and finger rings are OK too.

Ever since the gist of the proposed legislation leaked out earlier this summer, those who celebrate diversity and promote multiculturalism have been whining that the Charter is an attack on religious minorities, discriminatory, and (of course) racist. Their argument was helped by remarks made last week by Premier Pauline Marois, who said multicult was responsible for "bomb-throwing" in England, and that the wearing of the hijab/niqab/burqa by Muslim women is an act of submission.

Mme Marois kept quiet over the weekend, handing le micro over to one of her predecessors, Bernard Landry. Appearing on Global TV's West Block, M Landry said flatly -- in English -- that Québec is not a multicultural society, and doesn't want to be one! Multicult, he said, was imposed on Québec, which continues to reject the idea to this day.

“You [the rest of Canada] like multiculturalism, go on,” M Landry continued. “My prediction is that within some years you will regret that attitude, but it’s your problem.” Wow! The ghosts of Charles DeGaulle and Enoch Powell could be heard applauding.

Poor Len Canayen wants to explain something to all the champions of multiculturalism and human rights industry types. The Charter of Québec Values is not about promoting Christianity and/or putting down non-Christian minority religions. The politics of the Parti Québecois is and has always been secularist.

The PQ was born out of Québec's "Quiet Revolution" of the 1960s, which slammed the door hard on the values and teachings of Holy Mother Church, which had long dominated the Québec society. The PQ is by nature leftist and "rationalist", the antithesis of the conservative Union Nationale and Libéral parties it displaced. The values which its proposed Charter enshrines are not those of true liberalism -- such as freedom of religion -- but those of secular humanism, man-centred, not God-centred.

Religious Québecois should, according to the principles of the Faith, oppose the new Charter. But the religious -- Christians or otherwise -- may, sadly, be in the minority. The proposed legislation is a clear winner in public opinion polls, being supported by those who feel, like Bernard Landry, that the waves of immigrants coming into the province must be "managed" and made to accommodate themselves to mainstream Québec society, rather than the other way around.

That is the real intent of the Charter. It has huge support from Québecois of all parties because they think that they will no longer have to look at legions of people walking down the Main attired in veils, turbans and funny hats. And that may be right, but not because the Muslims, Sikhs and Jews will conform, but because they will head west to the city where multicult is king, namely Toronto. Kathleen Wynne's Liberal government is already planning to widen the 401.

Further reading: "Multiculturalism: a failed experiment?"

"'I told you this would happen!': Enoch Powell"

"Charles De Gaulle warns about Muslim immigration"

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".