Something for those who aren't celebrating Canuckistan Day

The "war on women": it's real, but not where they tell you it is

UPDATED: Two more countries (European & Asian) ban the burqa

Can you guess which peaceful, prosperous, European country has voted to ban full facial coverings in public places? Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands and Sweden all have full or partial bans on religious (read: Islamic) and non-religious face coverings. This Sunday, they were joined by... wait for it... Switzerland.

Following years of debate, a referendum showed 51.2% of the conservative Swiss in favour of a ban. Why so? Here are quotes from three Swiss "influencers". 

• "In Switzerland our tradition is that you show your face. That is a sign of our basic freedoms." — Walter Wobmann, member of the Swiss People's Party, the biggest political party in Switzerland.
• "Some Muslims also understood that the niqab is a clear symbol of radical Islam." — Jean-Luc Addor, member of the Swiss People's Party.
• "Saying yes to the ban on veiling is saying no to a totalitarian ideology that has no place in a democracy." — Saïda Keller-Messahli, founder and president of the Forum for a Progressive Islam (!!!)

The referendum reflects the determination of a majority of Swiss voters to preserve Swiss traditions and values in the face of runaway multiculturalism and the encroachment of political Islam.

Although the refernedum was known as "the burqa initiative", the ballot question didn't specifically mention burqas or niqabs, the face-coving garments worn by some Muslim women. Indeed, the face covering shown in the poster, appears to be a niqab. See "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?" WWW 28/7/10.

The ban encompasses most face coverings, including the bandanas and masks sometimes used by violent street protesters [Really? Can we get such a law here? Ed.], and applies to all public spaces, including parks, restaurants, shops, and public transport. 

The measure allows for some exceptions: health (anti-Covid masks); weather (scarves), safety (motorcycle helmets) and local customs (carnival costumes). Face coverings may also be worn inside houses of worship. In line with the Swiss system of direct democracy, the country's constitution will now be amended to incorporate the ban. The government has two years to draw up the necessary legislation. 

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

UPDATE ADDED 13/1/21: BBC News reports that Sri Lanka -- a country dear to Walt's heart -- has taken a significant step towards banning the burqa and other face coverings in public. The Asian country's Public Security Minister Sarath Weerasekara told the BBC that he had signed a cabinet order which now needs parliamentary approval. 

Officials say they expect the ban to be implemented very soon. The move was made for reasons of public safetey, nearly two years after a wave of co-ordinated attacks on hotels and churches on Easter Sunday of 2019.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Netherlands latest EU country to ban the burqa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politically incorrect Denmark bans burqa, niqab

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

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

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

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

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

Québec 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.

Islamic suicide bomber disguised in burqa kills NATO soldier

Walt has warned before about the ease with which a man intent on no good can cover himself with the extreme Muslim outerwear known as a burqa, under which not even the wearer's eyes can be seen, to perpetrate whatever evil deeds he has in mind. See "A good reason to ban the burqa", WWW 4/11/13, which dealth with just such a case in Not-so-great Britain. In spite of that case and a number of Islamic terrorist attacks -- most recently the Manchester massacre -- the UK government has yet to ban the wearing of Islamic costumes.

Islamic dress is, of course, de rigueur, in Abu Dhabi, one of the statelets that make up the United Arab Emirates. There, last June, a Pakistani dressed in a burqa lured an 11-year-old boy from a mosque in before raping and murdering him. According to Abu Dhabi Police Department Major General Mohammed Al-Knacker, the criminal cross-dressed as a woman since he knew that the little boy would not go with a man without permission from his parents.

Surveillance footage shows the suspect with a purse getting into an elevator with the young victim, whom he brutally raped and strangled the 11-year-old to death soon after they reached the roof of the apartment block. A report in the Conservative Daily Post says that air-conditioning technicians found the victim on the roof of his residence, half-naked and with a Quran in his hands.

To be clear, the clothing shown in the police mug shots looks to me like niqab, not a burqa. If, like the writer of the article, you're not clear on the difference, see "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10, which has a fine picture of three ladies (???) dressed in burqas.

We come now to the headline story, from Afghanistan, where (believe it or not), NATO troops are still carrying on the US-led mission to defeat the Taliban/ISIS/Al-Qaeda/whoever and bring peace, prosperity and the benefits of American democracy to the people of that benighted country. No matter what the government says, we are losing that battle.

Yesterday, in northern Takhar province near Qarabagh, barely 18 miles north of Kabul, a Taliban suicide bomber struck a NATO patrol in Afghanistan, killing a "service member" and two civilians. Six service members, including an Afghan translator, were wounded. A spokesthingy for the US military confirmed that a service member was killed but did not reveal the soldier's nationality. A district governor said the jihadi concealed his explosives beneath the all-enveloping women's garment known as a burqa.

The attack was the second suicide bombing in as many days that targeted NATO. On Wednesday, a suicide attacker hit a convoy on the edge of the southern city of Kandahar, killing two American soldiers and wounding another four. Both attacks were claimed by the Taliban. Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesthingy told AP over the phone on Friday that one of its fighters from Takhar province carried out yesterday's attack. He claimed 11 Americans were killed, but the insurgents routinely exaggerate their claims. So that's OK then.

Still more news from Armpitistan... Today, in southern Helmand province, the Taliban stormed a market in the Gareshk district and fired at a nearby police station. As Friday is the Muslim sabbath, the market was closed, so no casualties were reported. The day before, yet another suicide bomber rammed a car full of explosives into a police outpost in the same town, killing two cops and wounding another two. Gareshk is obviously not a good place to live, or even visit. Last month, the Pentagon confirmed that an errant US bomb destroyed a police outpost there, killing 12 officers and wounding another 11.

Walt hasn't written much lately about Armpitistan and the endless Muslim civil wars of the Middle East. I'm sick of all that, and truly sick, sore and tired of seeing the waste of western lives and treasure in affairs which are none of our business. And there's the ancillary problem of refugees and asylum-seekers. All the trouble in the world emanates from the heart of Islam. Can the final solution be anything other than the Armageddon?

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

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

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

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

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

The AFP story quotes a spokesthingy for the Moroccan Ministry of the Interior as saying "We have taken the step of completely banning the import, manufacture and marketing of this garment in all the cities and towns of the kingdom, since bandits have repeatedly used this garment to perpetrate their crimes." ("Bandits" is Arabic for "terrorists".)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burqa, niqab banned in Netherlands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Afghans mourn departure of Canadian soldiers

158 lives, $1.5 billion and 12 years after joining the American invasion of Afghanistan, the last of Canada’s military personnel -- recently disguised as "trainers" -- hauled down the flag in Kabul this morning. This afternoon they hauled ass out of the sandpit.

One of the reasons advanced by the government of "Call me Steve" Harper for Canada's involvement in a hopeless conflict was the protection and enhancement of the rights of Afghan women. An Afghan woman -- we presume* -- is seen here bidding farewell to the departing Canadian troops.

"Hey Joe," she says, "You want buy fancy underwear take home to girlfriend? Buy 3 pairs I throw in my daughter!" [Translation has not been checked for accuracy. Ed.]

The Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan told the departing troops, "Your strength has protected the weak; your bravery has brought hope to hopeless; and the helping hand you have extended to the Afghan people has given them faith that a better future is within their grasp." Canuck soldiers stifled snickers, for they (and everyone at home except Don Cherry) know the truth of the matter.

Heavy combat, roadside bombings and other incidents took the lives of 158 Canadian soldiers, one diplomat, one journalist and two civilian contractors. Many soldiers who returned home injured or profoundly changed by the experience are now struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder, inadequate mental health care services, unemployment and other issues.

A number have committed suicide in recent months, including one whose grieving mother just received a cheque for one (1) cent -- 0.9 cents in real money -- severance pay from a grateful nation.

Security is deteriorating in many parts of the country, raising serious questions about Afghanistan’s future. Just this week, a European journalist was shot, execution-style, not far from the Canadian embassy. A Taliban group claimed responsibility for the killing. A spokesthingy said, "We didn't know he was a Swede. All these infidels look the same."

NATO combat forces -- chiefly American -- still in Afghanistan are scheduled to leave at the end of the year. However, member nations have promised $4.1 billion a year in funding for the country’s alleged security forces. The money will be spent on upgrading their uniforms, for instance by lining the pockets of their officers.

The departing Canadian commander was unable to turn out the lights, since the bulbs and copper wiring had been stolen.

* Hard to tell when someone's wearing a burqa! This just in... In "How the West made a hash of the Afghan war", CBCNews has a picture of this same woman (???) who is identified as a beggar. The article is worth reading!

Muslim man wore burqa while killing wife who wanted divorce

If you're a Muslim and your wife demands a divorce, what do you do? Give her one, obviously! Or you could kill her, to preserve the family honour.

How would you disguise yourself if you chose the second option? Perhaps by donning a burqa and slipping into a pair of wedgies (shoes, that is) so you might pass for a woman? That's what Abdul Malik Rustam did on 22 July 2011. That's him in the picture. He was sentenced yesterday to life in prison (with no chance of parole for 17 years) for the second-degree murder of his 21-year-old wife, Shaher Bano Shahdady, after she asked for a divorce.

Then he left their son, not yet 2 years of age, with his mother’s body for 15 hours before she was discovered in her Toronto apartment. "The accused demonstrated an exceptionally callous disregard for that young child’s well-being," said the sentencing judge. "It’s hard to fathom what that child went through. The only glimmer of hope is that he’s so young it will fade into that child’s memory."

The deadly attack occurred shortly, but not immediately, after Rustam entered his estranged wife’s home. "This was not a case of a heated argument that escalated into physical violence," the judge said. "This courageous young woman fought for her life," leaving scratch marks on her husband's face and neck.

After the murder, the very righteous Rustam returned to his victim's parents' home and accompanied his father-in-law -- yes, the father of the girl he had just killed -- to the mosque for 4:30 a.m. prayers. Later that day he confessed to his brother that he had "finished her by the throat."

The brother alerted the victim’s family to go to her home. While they were knocking, Rustam showed up and opened her door. When he saw her corpse, he rushed away in grief [Really? Ed.] and confessed the killing to police, saying he had "certain justifications for his actions". The judge, however, said women "have an absolute right to end their relationships” without fear of violence.

Shahdady had lived apart from her older, jealous husband from an arranged marriage for almost two years — using a cellphone and the Internet and expanding her social network while raising their son who had heart problems from birth. The court was told that when Rustam joined his wife and child in Canada in March 2011, he objected to her having a cellphone and "an online friendship with another man" in Dubai. Within days, it was so unbearable that Rustam was asked to leave the family home.

In May of 2011, Rustam reunited with his wife in her parents’ home. But his wife refused to surrender her cellphone and the tensions flared again. She left the home in early July while Rustam stayed. Their marriage was over, said Shahdady, who repeatedly rejected his bids for reconciliation. The killing occurred only two weeks after the woman went on welfare and moved into a community housing apartment.

The presiding judge said that Rustam displayed "elements of planning and forethought" by donning a burqa, women’s footwear and gloves. He manipulated the surveillance camera in front of the victim’s doorway so that he couldn’t be seen when he went inside.

Defence counsel had argued this homicide was not an honour killing. "[Rustam is] a simple and unsophisticated man who snapped under great psychological torment," his lawyer said. The judge disagreed.

Further reading on WWW: "Honour killings in Canada now average nearly 1 per year".

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.