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!

Poll: Most Canadians think Islam, Sikhism bad for their society

Just heard from Agent 3 for the second time this week. In the third week of October (he writes) he responded to a poll conducted by the respected (and politically neutral) Angus Reid organization. Since the subject was "social issues", Agent 3 responded with alacrity (and very quickly too), but, since he figured the poll was being taken on behalf of Canada's Liberal government, he didn't expect to see the results published.

Surprise! The poll of nearly 2000 Canucks was conducted in partnership with Faith in Canada 150, powered by Cardus, a think tank. It's a non-denominational initiative "designed to engage Canadians and their institutions in a rich and robust conversation on faith in our common life." They took the poll, it seems, to see what impact their efforts to Draw All Faiths Together (DAFT) have had, and released the results earlier this week... even though the results were disappointing to those who believe people of all "faith communities" should get in a big circle and sing "Kumbaya".

The survey found that Canadians are divided over whether religious diversity is healthy for the country, and consider Islam, in particular, to be a negative force. 26% of respondents said increasing religious diversity is a good thing, while 23% said it is bad. (Agent 3 didn't say which group he fell into, but we can guess, can't we.) 44% said diversity brings a mix of good and bad, and the remaining 7% were unsure or, being Canadian, too polite to say how they really feel.

Questions about respondents' views on particular religious groups revealed strong anti-Islam sentiment. 46% of those polled said Islam is damaging Canada, while only 13% per cent said it is beneficial. 20% either did not know or care to say (see above), while 21% said the "Religion of Peace" has no real impact. The pollsters said the results are in keeping with "a well-documented pattern. Namely, if Islam is involved, a significant segment of Canadians will react negatively."

Catholicism, Protestantism, evangelical Christianity and Judaism all had overall positive ratings. The only other religion with an overall negative score was Sikhism, with 22% calling it damaging and 13%. Bad news for Jagmeet Singh, the new leader of Canada's socialistic New Democrats, who makes a big point of being a practising Sikh, wearing his very tall orange turban as a kind of visual punctuation mark.

Angus Reid, the founder and president of the eponymous institute, said he found it "disheartening that Canadians are not more committed to the freedom of religion enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Only a slight majority — 55% — of respondents said freedom of religion makes Canada a better country, while 14% said the freedom makes Canada worse and 21% thought it has no impact. Mr Reid told an interviewer, "I think the low number of Canadians who celebrate the fact that we have religious freedom is very troubling and really speaks to the forces of secularization that are at work in Canadian society."

Mr Reid sees in the results a "potential for intolerance" towards believers, especially adherents of minority religions. Asked whether various groups' influence was growing or shrinking in Canada, respondents identified Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism as growing. Canada's more established religious groups were all seen to have a shrinking influence.

Ray Pennings, executive vice-president of Cardus, said he thinks "what we're talking about is a public narrative." He found significance in the finding that the two groups seen negatively are also those with visible religious symbols such as the hijab and turban. (The poll was taken in the same week that the Québec National Assembly passed Bill 62, which restricts the wearing of religious headgear when providing or receiving public services.) "Is it a discomfort with the particulars of their faith," Mr Pennings asked, "or is it a discomfort with the fact that they’re different than us?"

The pollsters asked about that -- about "cases where religious practice intersects with the public sphere". There was solid opposition to the niqab, a garment worn by some Muslim women that covers the entire face except the eyes. 49% of respondents said a woman in a niqab should be prohibited from visiting a government office and 29% said she should be discouraged but tolerated. Only 22% said the woman should be welcomed.

As is frequently seen on questions of religion, opinion in Québec was strongest on many of the questions. Fully 55% of Quebec respondents said Islam is damaging, and it was the only region where more people considered Judaism damaging (22%) than saw it as beneficial (11%). Québécois were most opposed to the niqab, with 68% saying it should be banned in government offices, which is the gist of Bill 62. They were also the most likely (31% vs 23% nationally) to identify increasing religious diversity as a bad thing.

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.

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?"