Québec to force "newcomers" to adopt "common culture"

What follows is excerpted from a report in the Groan & Wail, Canada's national snoozepaper.

Québec’s immigration minister says newcomers to the province need to embrace the “common culture,” as the government looks to put Québec identity back at the forefront of the political agenda. 

The Québec government will table a new bill Thursday on the integration of immigrants, which will require newcomers to adhere to Québec values like gender equality and secularism. 

"We will be pretty clear. We are a nation, we have a culture, we have democratic values," Immigration Minister Jean-François Roberge told reporters in Québec City as the provincial legislature resumed Tuesday following the holiday break. "And people coming here must accept that." (Walt's emphasis.)

M Roberge said the bill aims to prevent "ghettoization" of immigrant communities by defining a social contract that will emphasize French as the official language of Québec. He said Québec has never accepted the concept of Canadian multiculturalism, first outlined in a 1971 policy to promote cultural diversity and enshrined in law in 1988. 

Canada has not defined a common culture for the country, the minister said, and Québec prefers the idea of interculturalism, focused on integrating immigrants into Québec culture. Newcomers have a "moral duty" to adhere to Québec culture, M Roberge said, adding that there will be obligations laid out in the bill – mechanisms to ensure its principles are upheld, though he offered no details.

Walt doubts that most Québécois would equate "gender equality" and "secularism" with traditional Québec values. Obviously M Roberge has in mind the new, woke, "progressive" values which have been imported from the US of A -- the ones he refers to as "democratic values". There should be a capital D there.

Nevertheless, Walt thinks making "newcomers" -- presumably including the bogus refugees and asylum-seekers which Québec is trying to push into other provinces -- adapt to the values and customs of their unwilling hosts, rather than the other way around, is a good idea. Many people in the rest of Canuckistan will wish their governments had the cojones to follow this course. 

Note from Ed.: I had a hard time finding an appropriate illustration of "Québec values". That tells you all ye know and all ye need to know about this subject.

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.

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.

Right-wing party ousts Liberals in Québec

Walt here, back home after five days touring (not tearing) through les Cantons de l'Est du Québec. It's good to be back in a place where I don't have to think before I speak [or write! Ed.]. How I envy people like my guide, Poor Len Canayen, who can switch effortlessly from French to English and back again.

Another person who can do that is Chantal Hébert, a columnist for the Toronto Red Star and regular guest on the "At Issue" segment of CBC's The National. Around the middle of September, in the middle of the Québec provincial election campaign, Mme Hébert told Agent 3 that immigration to la Belle Province and the resultant anti-immigrant backlash was a non-issue in this election. She called it "the dog that didn't bark."

The issue was raised by the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) led by millionaire businessman François Legault, who promised that his party would cut the number of immigrants coming into the province from 50,000 to 40,000 per year. And it would force them to take an assessment of their knowledge of the French language and of Québec values within three years in order to obtain a Quebec Selection Certificate, which they need in order to get permanent residency from the federal government.

Those vows brought M Legault into conflict other provincial party leaders. The Liberals predictably accused him of not respecting diversity and stirring up divisions. The Parti Québécois accused him of not going far enough.

The lamestream media dismissed the idea of a values and language test as a warmed-up version of the proposed Charter of Québec Values which (they told us) cost the Parti Québécois the provincial election of 2014, won by the moderately progressive Liberals. There's no anti-immigrant sentiment in Québec, they told us. Québécois are just as tolerant as other Canadians, who, as is well known, love immigrants, espeically the bogus "refugees" and asylum-seekers who are crossing the border between Vermont and Québec illegally, at St-Bernard-de-Lacolle, at the rate of over 1000 per month, assisted by the Mounties who carry their bags and direct them to the welfare office. It was to that part of Québec -- the Eastern Townships -- that we went to gauge the sentiment of real habitants, not the chattering classes of Montréal.

In our travels through the ridings (electoral districts, for our American readers) of Brome-Mississquoi, Orford, Sherbrooke, Granby, Saint-François and Mégantic, we saw lots of signs and posters for the CAQ, some for the other parties (notably Québec Solidaire in Sherbrooke) and very few for the Liberals. The people we talked to -- no taxi drivers or media types! -- were surprisingly unemotional, but pretty sure that change was coming, in the form of a CAQ government.

Why? Not because of the economy, which several told us was doing well enough, under the Liberals, but because of "the values thing". No-one actually said "Québec aux Québécois!", but that was the underlying sentiment, as I read it. That part of Québec, sometimes called l'Estrie, went solidly Liberal in 2014. It contains the largest percentage of anglophones (English speakers) outside of Montréal's west island, but even they seemed in the mood for change, so much so that we couldn't even start an argument, let alone get some bets down!

So... it came as no surprise to Poor Len and yr obdt servant that the CAQ swept l'Estrie and virtually all of Québec, apart from the aforesaid west island. There are 125 seats in the Québec Assemblée Nationale. Final count (as of this writing, subject to a couple of recounts): CAQ 74 (a comfortable majority); Liberals 32; Québec Solidaire 10; Parti Québécois (the former separatists) 9. Turns out the dog that didn't bark chose to bite instead!

As with the American election of 2016 and the Ontario election of this past June, the pollsters and meeja pundits got it WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! They were so sure, right through mid-day yesterday, that the "divisive" CAQ, led by a millionaire businessman (cf. Donald Trump and Doug Ford) couldn't win, that their wildest prediction was that the Liberals might be reduced to a minority government.

The looks on the "experts"' faces reminded me of nothing so much as the long pusses displayed by Joy Behar and all the rest on American TV on The Night of the Trump. I hope someone is putting together a highlight reel showing the moment when the CBC realized the CAQ was going to win. It was at 8:19 PM EDT -- 19 minutes after the polls closed. Just In Trudeau and federal Liberals take note -- YOU'RE NEXT!

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 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.

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.

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?"

"Culture wars" in Canada? Really?

You bet, EH! Not content with involving his country in a shooting war in the Middle East -- score so far: Muslims 3, Canadian troops 0 -- Canuck PM Steve Harper has quite unaccountably resurrected the debate over the "Canadian values" enshrined in Québec's Charter of Values, proposed but not enacted last year.

As Walt explained in "Multiculti types horrified as Charter of Québec Values bans religious headgear", the law mooted by the Parti Québécois government of Pauline Marois would have prohibited the wearing by public servants in public places of religious dress and symbols, including the Jewish kippa, Sikh turban and kirpan, large Christian crosses, and the hijabs, niqabs and burqas favoured by some Muslim women.

If you're not sure about the difference between hijab, niqab and burqa, check out "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?". (That post from 2010 is near the top of WWW's all-time most-read list.)  Or just study this illustration below, which includes the chador, something like a hijab extended to a full cloak.

To the consternation of the English-speaking chattering classes and the usual celebrants of diversity, polling consistently showed the proposed charter a winner with French-speaking Québec voters. But there were other issues -- a sluggish economy, corruption and (as usual) separation -- compared with which religious headgear seemed unimportant, and the PQ government went down to defeat, and with it the charter.

All was quiet for the next ten months, until the Federal Court of Canada struck down a regulation, introduced by then Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney in 2011, banning the wearing of the niqab or any other face covering while taking the Oath of Citizenship.

An immigrant from Pakistan had sent home for a bride -- as is "normal" for the clannish south Asians -- and brought to Canada a devout Muslim lady named Zunera Ishaq. In due course Ms Ishaq applied for citizenship and passed the examination ("What's a 'double-double'?") in November 2013. When it came time to take the oath, she objected to the requirement to remove the veil at the citizenship ceremony it is unnecessary for the purposes of identity or security. Worse than that, she said, it's a public event and her face would be seen by strange men.

Immigration officials subsequently offered to seat Ms Ishaq in either the front or back row and next to a woman at the ceremony, but she refused the arrangement since the citizenship judge and officers could still be male, and there could potentially be photographers at the event.

The upshot was that the ceremony was deferred and Ms Ishaq brought suit. Mr. Justice Keith M. Boswell ruled that "To the extent that the policy interferes with a citizenship judge’s duty to allow candidates for citizenship the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation of the oath, it is unlawful."

Fair enough. Freedom of religion seems to be covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms embedded in the Canadian Constitution. But... is the wearing of the niqab (or hijab or burqa) a requirement of Islam? No! It is just a cultural practice, the custom in certain parts of the Muslim world -- Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and places where "freedom of religion" applies only to Muslims, and not all Muslims at that!

To the surprise of many, the Harper government has decided to appeal Mr. Justice Boswell's decision. A spokesthingy for Citizenship and Immigration Canada said, "New citizens are obliged to confirm their identity when taking the Oath of Citizenship‎, which is sworn or affirmed in public. It is simply common sense to require removal of facial coverings or other items that hide new citizens’ mouths from view. The oath, knowledge and language tests, as well as years of residency, are among the basic requirements for joining the family of Canadian citizens."

The Prime Minister himself put the case rather more strongly. Speaking in the House of Commons this week, Mr. Harper called the Federal Court's move to strike down the 2011 ban "offensive", and said, "We don't allow people to cover their faces during citizenship ceremonies, and why would Canadians, contrary to our own values, embrace a practice at that time that is not transparent, that is not open and, frankly, is rooted in a culture that is anti-women?" (My emphasis. Walt)

So there you have it. Going about with your face covered, especially at a ceremony meant to show your commitment to your adopted country, is contrary to Canadian values. Minister Kenney told CBC Radio's The House today that people should pledge their allegiance to their fellow citizens publicly and openly. (Click here to listen to the complete interview, including Mr. Kenney's waffle on whether or not Canada will continue to participate in the American invasion of Iraq.)

The government view is finding a lot of favour with ordinary Canadians -- non-members of the meeja and PC mafia -- outside of Toronto, particular in... wait for it... Québec. On the same edition of The House, an imam said the niqab isn't part of Muslim culture, but only of Saudi culture. Mr. Harper told the House of Commons that he speaks for not just the majority of Canadians, but the majority of moderate Muslims. Will the Federal Court of Appeal agree? We'll see. Meanwhile, the war continues.

Québec votes to leave well enough alone

Yesterday, as Walt et tout le monde predicted, the voters of Québec turfed out the Parti Québecois of Pauline Marois, and gave the Liberals, led by Philippe Couillard, a solid majority in the province's Assemblée Nationale. Lifetime pct .990.

Mme Marois lost her own riding. Her star candidate, Pierre-Karl Péladeau, whose ill-judged remarks about building a "country" for his children contributed to the defeat, won his seat and may be a contender for the PQ leadership, now that Mme Marois has stepped down. The more moderate Coalition Avenir Québec held its own, while Québec Solidaire (the most leftish separatists) increased their representation by 50% -- from two seats to three.

What does all this mean? The first clue may be seen in the half-cent rise in the value of the Canadian dollar on the foreign exchange markets this morning. Québec is not going to separate. Canada is not going to break up. The rest of the world (to the extent that it cares at all) is reassured.

Canadians, including most Québecers, were never in serious doubt. The Québecois like talking about "sovereignty" -- not as strong a word as "independence" -- but when it comes down to giving up the beaverbuck, massive federal subsidies and their Canadian passports, common sense always prevails. Referenda on separation were lost in 1980 and 1995, so the issue was due to come around again, but that didn't mean the idea would fly.

This year's election was not a referendum as such, but "a referendum on a referendum". Not even the PQ's proposal to have a real referendum "when the time is right" found favour with the voters. It seems they would prefer to talking about it to doing it.

Does that mean separatism is dead? No. There will always be those in Québec who, in their wild, romantic dreams, would like to secede from Canada, just as there are closet Confederates throughout the southern USA or "splittists" in western China. But those who hold onto visions of a state of their own are getting fewer...and older.

The separatist movement in Québec was born in the hippy-dippy 60s. (The PQ itself was founded by René Levesque and others in 1970.) Polling and yesterday's results show that today's true believers are mostly over-55s, outside of Montréal. The younger generation is more interested in putting food on the table than in whether or not the packaging is in French. Pro-soverignty sentiment is not dead, but it's dying, along with the aging baby boomers who espoused it.

Does yesterday's vote signify a rejection of the PQ's proposed Charter of Québec Values? Although the anglophone media and "progressive thinkers" might wish it so, Walt thinks otherwise. When Mme Marois called the election, the Charter was supposed to be the ballot question. At the beginning of the campaign it was assumed that the PQ would win, because of majority support for the Charter in all of Québec except the parts of Montréal with large immigrant populations. It only remained to be seen whether the PQ would get a majority or not.

The now-ex-premier's big mistake was introducing P-K Péladeau as her star candidate. The idea seemed to be to bolster the PQ's shaky reputation for economic competence, and show that an independent Québec could be successful and prosperous, just like M Péladeau. Unfortunately for Mme Marois, M Péladeau took it all too seriously, and started talking about sovereignty and the R-word ("referendum"). He even spoke of a "country" for his children, while giving the now-infamous fist-pump -- a truly cringeworth moment.

A video clip that went viral showed Mme Marois literally shoving M Péladeau to the side of the platform, but the genie was out of the bottle, and the voters saw a future that they didn't like. It was all over at that very moment, with only the magnitude of the Liberal victory to be determined.

La Belle Province and all of Canada can breathe a sigh of relief. For another generation or so, Québecers (and the rest of Canada) can continue to argue about sovereignty and bilingualism and multiculturalism, but nothing will change. The Montréal Canadiens will remain Canada's team, and you'll still be able to order a hamburger -- not "un hambourgeois" -- most anywhere in what will still be a province of Canada. Une province pas comme les autres, to be sure, but a part of Canada all the same.

Against Islamization, the French send in La Marine!

If Pauline Marois were honest [What? An honest politician?! Ed.], she'd admit that the appeal of the Charter of Québec Values to the pure laine Québecois -- outside of Montréal's West Island -- is its promise to put a brake on the Islamization of la Belle Province.

If enacted (as now seems doubtful) it would proscribe the wearing of religious headgear and other symbols. That would include the Sikhs' turbans and the Jews' kippas, but the main target would appear to be the hijab/niqab/burqa worn by Muslim women. (See "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?" -- one of Walt's most-read posts.)

Although it's not politically correct to say so, les Québecois are sick, sore and tired of accommodating themselves and their distinct society to the foreign beliefs and practices being imported into their province by the tidal wave of Muslim refugees and immigrants who live large off benefits provided by the state, but refuse to integrate themselves into the host society.

The people of Québec are not alone in their resentment of Islamization and forced multiculturalism. Walt suspects that the majority of Canadians (outside of Toronto and Vancouver) would support some changes to the Canadian Charter of Rights to give a few rights to the majority, for a change. And the citizens of France -- the cradle of liberty, equality and fraternity -- have just given a ringing endorsement to the policies of Marine Le Pen's Front National (= National Front) which advocates controlling imports of foreign goods, leaving the Eurozone, dismantling the European Union, and -- especially -- stopping immigration. Completely.

In local elections held in March, the FN stunned France by winning several significant mayoralties. Pundits now predict that Mme Le Pen may match the achievement of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, by getting into the second round of France's presidential election due in 2017.

What's the secret of Marine Le Pen's success? According to The Economist, a large segment of the electorate -- especially the native French working class -- is taken with her frankness, and the way she "attacks politicians from the mainstream parties as an out-of-touch metropolitan elite with no notion of how to reverse their country's economic, political and cultural decline." [My emphasis. Walt]

Of course this has the socialists and secular humanists who run France (Allo, M Hollande!) and the lamestream media all bent out of shape. In the same editorial, The Economist whines that the FN "offers only a nasty and negative set of policies suffused with xenophobic, anti-Muslim and illiberal instincts." Maybe so, but those "instincts" would seem to accord perfectly with those of the majority of the French people.

There's a lesson there -- even The Economist admits it -- for the leaders of the ABC countries (America, Britain and Canada), who should realize that "populist parties are on the march across Europe"!

With the proposed Charter of Québec Values, the Parti Québecois seemed to have learned from the example of France. But then Mme Marois introduced issues of separation from Canada and economic management, which did not play so well in the Saguenay. Now the PQ is going to lose. (Lifetime pct .987)

What lessons do we learn from this, boys and girls? The Economist warns that "if Europe's leaders cannot reconnect with their citizens, Ms Le Pen's success will be just the start". Indeed. If you want to get elected or re-elected, don't listen to the lamestream media and the metropolitan elites -- listen to the people!

Further reading: If you read French and are opposed to the New World Order, check out Le citoyen engagé - Portail de l'éveil citoyen contre le NOM.

Elections coming up in Québec and Afghanistan -- who cares?

In the first week of April two "states" are holding elections of some interest to Walt, if not TROTW (The Rest of the World). I put "states" in quotes because we're talking about Québec -- actually a province of Canada, whether it* likes it or not -- and Afghanistan, an occupied territory of the Paranoid States of America.

The idea that there might be an election, no matter how flawed, in the Armpit of the Middle East is being hailed as a great triumph for the USA and its "coalition of the willing". The Afghan people will be free to vote for a replace for outgoing president Mohammad Krazai, we are told. That means there's at least a modicum of peace and stability in the almost-failed state. Yeah, sure. Walt is listening to a radio (!) report from the sandpit right now. Gunfire is clearly audible in the background.

The shooting is probably being done by the Taliban. Yes, they are still there, in spite the lost of 1000s of lives and billions of dollars over a dozen years, trying to run them out of Dodge. Latest realistic estimates put the numbers of Taliban higher than ever, and now they are threatening to kill anyone and everyone who dares to participate in the putative election. Their attack on the Serena Hotel a few days ago shows that they can do it, too... with impunity.

Meanwhile, there will be a free and fair provincial election in Québec. It will be as honest and democratic as such things ever get in la Belle Province, which is to say about as honest and democratic as an election in Chicago. The outcome is, however, of interest to the governments of Canada and (believe it or not) the UK, Russia and China, because of the spectre of separation.

That's right, messieurs/dames, the Québécois are having one of their periodic dithers about whether or not to remain a part of Canada. The real countries mentioned above are interested because they are all trying to figure out what to do about separatist movement in their own nations. The Scots want to separate from Britain. The Chechens and others want to separate from Russia. And Uighurs and Tibetans quite understandably want out of China.

The Québec election wasn't supposed to be about separation. The Parti Québécois, which has had a minority government for the last couple of years, decided to ride a wave of popular support following its introduction of a new Charter of Québec Values, so called a snap election. They looked set to win a majority because the people of Québec, outside of Montréal, really dislike the Islamization of their society.

Unfortunately for Québec Premier Pauline Marois, the prospect of a big win went to her head. She brought in a "star candidate", Pierre-Karl Péladeau, owner of the Québecor media conglomerate. M Péladeau's presence on the platform was meant to show the people that Québec is... or could be... an economic powerhouse on its own, and that's exactly what P-K said, with emphasis on the "I-word" -- Independence. Mme Marois had no choice but to say that, yes, her government would hold yet another referendum, when the time was right... whenever that might be.

The I-word and the R-word, combined in the same speeches, have scared the bejazus out of the naturally conservative Québécois, who are loath to give up things Canadian -- like Canadian passports, Canadian pensions and Canadian dollars. Look for the opposition Liberals to be returned to power and the debate over separatism to be ended... until next time.

As for Afghanistan, it doesn't matter who wins. The pitiful country, awash in opium, will continue to be plagued by corruption and violence. At some point it will officially be declared a "failed state". Perhaps some Western governments will at last admit that the mission to save the Afghans from themselves was a failure. But Walt wouldn't bet on it.

Lifetime pct .986.

* Interpret "it" either way, as you please.

If not a "headscarf", what would you call it?

Yesterday Walt commented on the accidental death of a lady whose head covering -- referred to as a "headscarf" -- got caught in an escalator at the Fabre station of the Montréal Metro (subway). While trying to free the "headscarf", the unfortunate lady got her hair caught, with fatal consequences. Walt's comment was that the death was a good argument for not wearing such head coverings in public places.

Even though Ed. made it clear [he thought! Ed.] that the assumption that the "headscarf" was a hijab had been made by the sub-editor at the QMI agency, who called it that in the headline in the Sun newspapers, we were greeted this morning by a comment calling Walt a "racist" for Walt's (presumed) support of the Charter of Québec values.

"Racist" is what liberals and PC thinkers call anyone who disagrees with their views on the beneficence of immigration, secularism, abortion, homosexuality etc etc ad nauseam. There was no evidence, the commenter said, to suggest that the deceased was a Muslim, yet (he or she said) that was what Walt implied by suggesting that the accident could be linked to headgear worn by Muslim women.

OK then. Here's a Facebook photo of the deceased. She is...or was...Naima Rharouity, age 47, from the district of Villeray, in Montréal's east end. She immigrated to Canada with her husband and children a little less than two years ago.

We don't know if this covering worn by Mme Rharouity is the same one she was wearing when she met her fate, but I think it's safe to assume that if not, it would have been something similar. And what should we call it? Please refer to "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?" It's not a burqa. It's not a niqab, which veils the face except for the eyes.

You might call it a "headscarf", since it's not cut square at the bottom as a hijab usually is, but it's being worn in the same manner (and for the same religious reason) as a hijab. Hands up, all who made the same assumption as the sub-editor at QMI...and Walt. Thank you.

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"

VIDEO: Culture clash! Québécois uncomfortable with Muslims importing their customs to Canada

The Québec National Assembly's Committee on Institutions has now begun hearings on the province's proposed Charter of Québec Values. If passed into law, the Charter would affirm the secular humanist values of "modern Québec" and severely restrict the religious and cultural "accommodation" of immigrants and religious minorities.

For example, the Charter would ban the wearing by public servants of overtly religious symbols, particularly headgear such as turbans and hijabs. See "What Québec's new Charter of Values will and will not do".

The proposed Charter has been denounced by the usual suspects as racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Sikh, ŷada yada yada. It can certainly be seen as blowback against political correctness, multiculturalism and the "celebration of diversity" which the Canadian government keeps saying is good for the country. The Bloc Québécois government itself has warned the vizmins that they'd better accommodate themselves to the values of their adopted country, not the other way around. See "Accept Québec values, black PQ minister warns immigrants".

The hearings now being held in the provincial capital are an opportunity for everyone -- not just the usual coterie of pundits, politicians and other "experts" -- to express their opinions. Even ordinary people are allowed to speak. Three such "real people" appeared on the 16th. Here's a short video of the testimony of Geneviève Caron and Claude Pineault, telling the commission about their experience travelling to Morocco and Turkey, countries that have a large Muslim majority.

For those who have difficulty understanding Québec French, Ed. has posted (below) a transcript of M Pineault's remarks, from Hansard, the official record of the proceedings. We'll add a précis, in English, below the video.



Recounting her visit to a mosque in Morocco, where she was asked to remove her shoes, Mme Caron said she reluctantly gave up her footwear, following the customary Muslim practice, only to find women and men praying on their hands and knees in separate quarters of the temple. "I remained really marked by this," she continued. "I got back on the bus and said, 'Could this be? Praying on all fours on a carpet?'".

M Pineault, her husband, spoke about visiting an open-air market in Tangier. While looking for souvenirs to buy, he had his pocket picked by two people who were wearing some kind of religious headgear. "Who was under these disguises? Women? Men? I don’t know." he said. "What I do know, is that it’s unthinkable to allow people to walk around in Quebec, in the streets, in public places — really anywhere besides homes and private places — with such disguises."

Bernard Drainville, the minister responsible for getting the Charter through the National Assembly, replied that many Muslims who come to Québec integrate quite well. He told M Pineault that he didn't want to send the message that people from other countries are a menace to Québec society.

The hearings continue.

Further reading on WWW: "Nobody likes the Charter of Québec Values...except the people!"

Extrait du Journal des débats (Hansard) of the Committee on Institutions (Québec)

Note from Ed.: What's this all about, I hear you ask. Well, back in September the government of Québec proposed to enact a Charter of Québec Values, which would affirm the secular humanist values of "modern Québec" and severely restrict the religious and cultural "accommodation" of immigrants and religious minorities.

For example, the Charter would ban the wearing by public servants of overtly religious symbols, particularly headgear such as turbans and hijabs. See "What Québec's new Charter of Values will and will not do".

The proposed Charter was seen by many as a backlash against political correctness, multiculturalism and the "celebration of diversity". It was denounced by the usual gang of "progressive thinkers" as a message from the French-speaking, nominally Catholic majority to the vizmins that they'd better accommodate themselves to the values of their adopted country, not the other way around. See "Accept Québec values, black PQ minister warns immigrants".

The Québec National Assembly's Committee on Institutions has now begun hearings on the proposed law, inviting submissions, pro and con, from all and sundry -- not just the usual coterie of pundits, politicians and other "experts". Even ordinary people are allowed to speak. Three such "real people" appeared on the 16th, to share their opinions and experiences with "accommodation" in Canada and in countries where Islam rules.

In the following post, I'm going to embed a video so you can see and hear the testimony of Claude Pineault and Geneviève Caron. M Pineault asked the Committee had some pointed questions. For our readers who struggle with le français tel qu'on le parle au Québec, I'm posting this transcript from Hansard, the official record of the proceedings. Those who wish to have a translation into English or Arabic are advised to use Google Translator. You're welcome.

Le Président (M. Ferland) : Alors, la commission va reprendre ses travaux. Je demande aux gens de reprendre leur siège, s'il vous plaît. Maintenant, nous allons recevoir M. Claude Pineault pour sa présentation. En vous mentionnant que vous disposez d'un délai de 10 minutes pour la présentation de votre mémoire, suivi de l'échange. Et je vous demanderais peut-être de présenter les personnes qui vous accompagnent. Alors, M. Pineault, la parole est à vous.

M. Pineault (Claude) : Oui, merci de nous permettre de donner notre point de vue. Je suis accompagné de mon épouse, Geneviève Caron, et d'une de mes filles, Manon Pineault.... Je vous présente mon mémoire. Je désire présenter moi-même mon mémoire à la commission. Je ne suis pas un expert, comme certains semblent se définir, mais je suis capable de faire mon choix personnellement.

J'ai visité plusieurs pays où il y a différentes religions telles que protestantes, orthodoxes, surtout musulmanes, exemple, le Maroc, la Turquie et la Tunisie. Au Maroc, à Tanger, j'étais dans un souk à choisir des souvenirs, on me fouille du côté droit. Je croyais que c'était mon épouse, mais on me fouille aussi du côté gauche. Je regarde; je vois deux personnes avec des cagoules sur la tête. Je les ai repoussées, et elles se sont sauvées. Qui était sous ces déguisements, des femmes, des hommes? Je ne sais pas. Mais ce que je sais, c'est qu'il est impensable de permettre à des personnes de se promener au Québec, dans les rues, les endroits publics, enfin, nulle part sauf dans les résidences ou les endroits privés, avec de tels déguisements.

En Turquie, à la fête du sacrifice, dans la région de l'Anatolie, j'ai vu des milliers brebis et autres animaux arriver par camion pour la fête du sacrifice. Le lendemain, j'ai vu le sang de ces bêtes couler dans les rues. À Istanbul, belle ville, mais les minarets répartis un peu partout dans la ville où les muezzins ou crieurs font entendre leur sirène, leur chant plusieurs fois jour et nuit; c'est très dérangeant.

Il y a environ 20 ans, je me promenais seul dans les rues de Montréal et j'étais en sécurité. Mais plus maintenant, car les gangs de rue ont pris le contrôle. Et là, certains organismes et dirigeants de partis politiques, dans le but de se faire élire ou réélire, sont prêts à nous faire reculer de 1 000 ans en arrière ou plus avec des guerres de religion. En Turquie, j'ai visité des tunnels à la Ben Laden, des troglodytes, des maisons creusées dans la pierre et des églises aussi creusées dans la pierre, pour se protéger des autres religions. C'est ce recul que même nos anciens dirigeants veulent nous faire accepter. Je suis convaincu que ces derniers, lorsqu'ils ont visité ces pays, ils sont restés dans les grandes villes.

Je ne peux comprendre que la charte sur la laïcité, ce sera plutôt…que même nos anciens dirigeants veulent nous faire accepter. Je suis convaincu que ces derniers, lorsqu'ils ont visité ces pays, ils sont restés dans les grandes villes. Je ne peux comprendre que la Charte sur la laïcité, ce sera plutôt une charte sur la religion. La religion, ça, ça doit se passer dans les églises, les temples, dans le privé et… car c'est personnel. Si vous êtes obligés de faire des compromis inacceptables, laissez tomber cette charte ou faites-en un enjeu électoral.

Il est possible que la… Est-il possible que la secte du Temple solaire soit de retour parmi nous? Si une personne avec une cagoule a le droit de se promener en public et même de voter aux élections, pourquoi moi, je n'aurais pas le même droit car je suis un métis ou, si vous aimez mieux, un autochtone? Et si on recule dans le temps, nos ancêtres — et moi aussi — on portait une gaine à la hanche — un poignard, si vous voulez — un mouchoir au cou, et nous pouvions relever ce mouchoir à la hauteur des yeux quand nécessaire. Aujourd'hui, un métis ou un autochtone doit prouver ses origines pour avoir des droits au Québec et au Canada. Pourquoi cela n'est pas nécessaire pour les personnes venues d'ailleurs?

Certains se plaignent qu'il y a du racisme au Québec. Eh bien oui, c'est vrai qu'il y en a, mais il provient des groupes qui viennent s'établir au Québec après plusieurs années, refusent de s'intégrer, nos coutumes, notre langue, et même demandent à ce que ce soit nous qui vivent suivant leurs coutumes. Si je vais me faire soigner par une personne supposée d'être un médecin, féminin ou masculin, portant un niqab et que moi aussi j'en porte un, qui sera sous les déguisements? Vous voyez l'aberration, le ridicule que certains politiciens veulent nous faire vivre au Québec?

Je demande à la population du Québec de remettre à leur place les politiciens qui ont perdu le sens des responsabilités qui leur incombe. Et même vous, du Parti québécois, permettre le port du niqab en déguisement dans les rues, c'est inacceptable car qui sera sous ce déguisement, encore une fois?

Présentement, le 11 décembre 2013, vous pouvez consulter la radio internationale de Radio-Canada un reportage sur le centre africain où il y a eu des lynchages, des pillages… appels à la reine… à la haine, excusez, entre chrétiens et musulmans. Aussi, le ministère canadien des Affaires étrangères demande aux Canadiens d'éviter les voyages en République centrafricaine.

Aussi, en Europe, il y a des problèmes avec les religions. La France, l'Allemagne, enfin pratiquement tous les pays. C'est cela que nos dirigeants veulent nous laisser en héritage, à nos enfants et à nos petits-enfants? Moi pas.

Céline Dion speaks out in favour of Québec's Charter of Values

You all know this lady, EH! She's Québec's darling, unofficial Canadian ambassador-at-large, and reigning queen of (white) pop in the Great Not-so-white North, Céline Dion. Just because she's a major celeb doesn't mean that Ms Dion has neither brains nor opinions. [That would be more like the Kardashians. Ed.]. Nor is she shy about expressing herself on matters other than her career and her lovelife.

In an interview with Maclean's Magazine, published on Saturday, Ms Dion spoke her mind on many things, including the Charter of Québec Values proposed by that province's government.

If enacted, the Charter would effectively ban public employees from wearing "overt" religious symbols while at work. Is this a good idea or should Québec try harder to celebrate diversity and "accommodate" its religious and cultural minorities? Here's what Céline thinks.

Q: Lucien Bouchard once called you Québec's greatest ambassador.... Amnesty International just declared Québec's controversial charter of values as a limit on fundamental rights that further stigmatizes vulnerable women. Do you agree with Amnesty?

A: It's a very delicate question to answer because I'll hurt some people and please others but you have to have an opinion. For me, it's not about the veil; it's beyond that. I'm not against what people wear but if you go to the hospital, and you are in Québec and we have embraced you and opened our country for you to live in a better world, you have to adapt to our rules.

If the doctor is a boy or a girl, you're gonna see the doctor that [is] sent to [treat] you. You can’t just say, "My religion doesn't permit me to see a woman or a male doctor." That's the problem for me....

Q: Yet you've stood up for women's causes throughout the years.

A: Of course! It's just that these women who practise the things they believe in have to adapt to our country. They have to not change our laws. Because you have a lot of Anglican or veiled women in a school, you can’t just take off the cross from the walls, or take down Christmas trees. If I go live in their country and have to be veiled, I will.

Footnote: A few days ago the Parti Québecois released details of comments the government has received on the proposed charter. Of 27,000 letters, faxes, e-mails etc received, 47% were in favour of the Charter. Adding in those who would approve of it with some changes, the favourable response tops 60%.

Québec is NOT multicultural, says ex-premier Landry

Former Québec Premier Bernard Landry has reiterated his statement that la Belle Province "is not and should not be multicultural". Yesterday in Montréal, he told Génération Nationale that the Parti Québecois proposed Charter of Québec Values is simply a reflection of the historical and democgraphic facts.

Different ethnicities have been part of the Quebec nation since the earliest days, M. Landry told the sovereignist group, adding he has six different ethnic groups in his own family tree.

M. Landry said the debate now gripping the province is "intense" but civilized and reflects well on the people of Québec and on the PQ provincial government. The provincial Liberals should have done it years ago, he said, "but didn’t have the courage."

He might have added that there are a lot of Canadians in TROC who would like their federal or provincial governments to put similar legislation on the books, if only they had the cojones. Chances of such a proposal being made by any party of any political stripe anywhere (else) in Canada are slim and none.

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.