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

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

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



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

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

UPDATED: Trump keeps his promises; panic ensues

Things have moved so fast in the first full week of Donald Trump's presidency that it's been hard for me to keep up. [Nothing to do with the Chinese New Year celebrations, then? Ed.] Across the Excited States of America and around the world, supporters and haters of The Donald [Ed., can we still call him that?] are expressing surprise (the supporters) and horror (the haters) that President Trump has moved immediately to keep the promises he made during the late election campaign. A politician who does what he said he'd do? AMAZING!

Agent 3 tells me that President Trump has done more in one week that Canada's new(ish) prime minister did in his first year. That would be because Mr Trump thinks there has been enough talk, and now it's time for action, whereas M Trudeau believes in more "conversations" -- including a "face the music tour" last week -- and no action apart from giving taxpayers' money to "disadvantaged minorities" and foreigners.

Everything President Trump has done, without exception, has aroused the ire of the usual suspects -- snowflakes, SJWs, eco-wienies, lawyers, activists and Democratic politicians. The liberals are revolting, and I mean that sincerely. "Spontaneous protests" have broken out in the streets of America's "sanctuary cities", in airports, and in the wilderness of North Dakota.

The ageing hippies camping out on private property in Dakota are incensed by President Trump's decision to greenlight the Dakota Access and Keystone XL oil pipelines. That decision has been warmly applauded by the folks in the oil patch, especially those north of the world's longest (somewhat) undefended border. Good time to buy Canadian oil stocks... and Transcanada Pipeline. (You're welcome.) Americans should be glad too. Why import oil from the sand niggers and terrorists when you can get it from the friendly frostbacks up north?

The protests raging today in the airports and sanctuary cities have been sparked by President Trump's executive order, announced on Friday, putting a four-month hold on the admission of "refugees" into the United States. The same order temporarily bars travellers from Syria and six other predominantly Muslim countries -- Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Iraq. Those, of course, are the sandpits from which Islamic terrorists come, in the guise of refugees and asylum-seekers, to wreak havoc in Western countries and kill as many "Christians" as they can, by whatever means possible.

The new restrictions on immigrants and refugees also apply to permanent residents who have passports from the seven Muslim countries. Any green card holders who were outside the country when the order took effect will have to be cleared back into the United States on a case-by-case basis. Google ordered its foreign Muslim employees to get back to the USA right sharpish, but several were caught in the air and detained on arrival at JFK and other airports. Chaos at the airport terminals ensured, and immigration lawyers, activists and Democratic politicians immediate organized protests and started knocking on judges' doors to help followers of the Prophet get back into the country.

At the break of dawn today, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying they plan on continuing to "enforce all of the president's executive orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people." The DHS was responding to a temporary order granted Saturday night by a New York judge staying the operation of the White House order, and releasing the dozen or so Muslims who were being held at JFK. "The president's executive orders remain in place," said the DHS statement. "Prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the US government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety."

America's staunch allies, the friendly frostbacks referred to above, immediately announced that refugees and any other travellers barred from entering the USA would be welcome in Canada... provided of course that they aren't Christians or conservatives or racists or oilpersons. Starting tomorrow, all travellers crossing the border or arriving at Canadian airports will be given a "liberal values" test to determine their willingness to embrace diversity... and vote Liberal.

Footnote: The Toronto Sun ran a poll yesterday asking its readers if they approved of President Trump's executive order banning Muslims from entering the USA. The results so far: YES - 55%; NO - 33%; not sure - 12%. You may think that Prime Minister Selfie is tone-deaf to the sentiments of ordinary Canadians. But it's not his fault. He and his liberal cronies don't read the Toronto Sun. They do read comments on the CBC website, but, alas, the CBC isn't allowing comments on any stories about immigration and "refugees". Wonder why...

FOOTNOTE ADDED 30/1/17: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which considers itself the collective voice of the Muslim world, has 57 member states. President Trump's travel ban affects citizens of only seven (7) of them. The governments of Iran and Iraq, to name two, have reacted with predictable fury. But from the leaders of the other 57... crickets! In the heart of the Muslim world -- Cairo (Egypt) and Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), the executive order has met with a conspicuous silence.

King Salman of Saudi Arabia, home of Islam's holiest sites, spoke to President Trump by telephone on Sunday but made no public comment. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt, whose capital, Cairo, is a traditional seat of Islamic scholarship, said nothing. What are we to make of this silence? Could it be that these leaders agree that a ban on travellers from terrorism-infected states is a good idea? Or are they merely afraid that their nations may be next?

Further reading: "In Face of Trump's Order, Some Muslim Nations Are Conspicuously Silent", New York Times, 29/1/17.

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.

VIDEO: Guess who agrees with Donald Trump about banning Muslims?

Before you click on the "play video" button to get the answer to Walt's headline question, consider this suggestion from Catherine Crier, a former Dallas District Attorney and judge. In the aftermath of 9/11 she wrote:

Following the terror attacks, you would think the INS would be examining its records. Not closely enough. The Florida flight school where Mohammed Atta trained finally got the proper paperwork and permission from the INS to train Atta and his cohort... six months after September 11.... People are calling for the deportation of those who are here illegally. It seems that the rational place to start would be those young males from nations we know are harboring terrorists. However, political correctness and discrimination have laws are thwarting this logical approach.

Ms Crier wrote that (in The Case Against Lawyers, Broadway Books, New York) in 2002. 2002! Donald Trump was still on his first wife then, 14 years away from making his own modest suggestion of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the USA in the wake of the San Bernardino massacre.

But hey, Mr Trump's idea is just a product of his racism and paranoia. That's what the lamestream media would have you believe. Only in America (they say) would swuch a divisive and fascistic notion be entertained even for a moment. No other people (they say) would even consider anything like that, no matter how clear the connection between Islamic extremism and the terrorist attacks which now occur with alarming regularity, all over the world.

The Canadians, for example, would recoil in horror from such blatantly racist and Islamophobic measures, no matter how grave the risk of further attacks. After all, the Canadians are the world's most polite, most tolerant, most multicult-loving people. Hell, they "celebrate diversity" every day. That's what the lamestream media on both sides of the world's longest quasi-defended border keep telling us.

But hold on there. Maybe the real Canadians -- outside of Toronto and Ottawa -- are just about as concerned about Islamic terrorism as their cousins south of the border. Listen to this report of the results of a poll conducted for Canada's Global TV network on the subject of measures to ensure national security.



Now that you've watched it, let me draw your attention to what you didn't see or hear. You heard the intro by news anchor Donna Freisen. [Many are cold, but few are freezin. Ed.] But unless you saw this on tonight's Global National, you didn't hear the extro, in which she mentioned, as a kind of throwaway, that Ipsos had asked the pollees what they thought of The Donald's call for a ban on people coming from "countries affected by terrorism". Ms Freisen said if you wanted to know how they answered, you'd find the complete poll results on the Global News website.

Ed. went to the website and, not without difficulty, hunted up the page from which this video was taken. Here's the text -- the entire text -- that accompanies the video. "Eric Sorensen breaks down the results of an Ipsos poll for Global News that shows some Canadians are willing to give up some freedoms for the sake of security."

That's it, that's all. No poll numbers, no information on how the poll was conducted, and no answer to the question: how many Canadians agree with Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the USA (or Canada)? Ed. had to dig down deeper into the Global news site to find the answer. Here it is.

"Half of Canadians support travel ban to protect Canada from terrorism: poll"

That's right, gentle reader. Fifty-one percent (51%) of the Canucks polled by Ipsos strongly or somewhat supported banning people from "all countries compromised by terrorism" as a means to ensure national security. The article quotes Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Global Public Affairs, as saying he was somewhat surprised by the response. "But given the events over the space of the last year, in places like Nice (France) and other places, there continues to be this generic concern about people coming into the country, who may have interest in doing us harm."

Hm. Wonder why that part of the story wasn't mentioned on Global National. Limitations of time, perhaps. Wonder why there was no link in the web page with the report by Eric Sorensen. Hmmm. Political correctness, perhaps?