Mocking Canada – Niqab at the Citizenship Ceremony

The marathon election campaign, which fortunately is nearing its end, gave us the opportunity to discuss at length issues that normally would get only a fleeting glimpse of attention despite their profound impact on the identity of our country. One of them was the fight of Zunera Ishaq, a Muslim who wanted to show up at her citizenship ceremony wearing the Muslim face mask, the niqab. When she was denied by the government, she went to court and a sympathetic judge sided with her. Despite the government appeal, still pending, a higher court allowed her to spit on the rules applicable to all Canadians and take her oath with her mask on.

The national debate about the case outlined perfectly the current state of public opinion in Canada. Despite the fact that the media did their best to present the niqab as an insignificant wedge issue, the wide discussions showed the abyss dividing ordinary people from our elitist (or just treacherous) politicians and intellectuals. While the latter saw the niqab as something we should stick with regardless of consequences in the name of abstract tolerance even to destructive ideas, the overwhelming majority of the “unwashed masses” stuck to their view that many imported customs and traditions shouldn’t be tolerated because of their potential destructive impact.

Once again, the elites presented the masses as mildly retarded kids who don’t know what is good for them. As a humble representative of those masses, I have no problem with such women wearing that repugnant garment at home or in their neighbourhoods, though it is highly doubtful if they do it by their own will, but when they want to force that barbarism on our institutions, it’s time to draw the line.

An important line was crossed on October 8 by the Toronto Star. That day we saw in the newspaper boxes a front page featuring a grotesque veiled creature staring at us with and uttering a bold statement: “I have a right to be here – this is my country.”

toronto-star-niqabThat could have been a man, woman, hermaphrodite or Martian; nobody could tell what was behind the mask. The disturbing part was that the Star was promoting the acceptance of that creature as the highest level of tolerance, while the creature itself didn’t appear to give a damn about Canada.

That ridiculous garment is enforced under the threat of stiffest punishment in the barbaric Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Yet here in Canada the newspaper that once was the flagship of the movement for justice and equality promotes a custom whose violation could land women in jail or under a pile of stones. It is a sad sign of the total moral bankruptcy of the left in Canada, which is also reflected in the views of morally corrupt politicians like Trudeau and Mulcair.

Before going into details about those elitist views, let me say that once again the masses’ opinion turned out to be correct. They felt that this couldn’t be an initiative of a lone woman fighting for her “rights.” It was difficult to imagine that she would be able to cover her legal expenses for such a prolonged battle. As every other Muslim attempt to defecate on our traditions and customs, this one also was a well-orchestrated collective initiative. It didn’t take long to expose Ms. Ishaq’s Islamist ties.

And it wasn’t the niqab-loving media that did it. It was another Muslim who knows what creeping sharia could do to a country – Tarek Fatah. He has been battling Muslim extremism for decades and had been instrumental in preventing the establishment of sharia courts in Ontario in 2005. In this case, all the evidence was in plain sight. Ms. Ishaq herself listed her political convictions and ties on her Facebook page. In a series of tweets Mr. Fatah revealed all that.

(Tarek Fatah - Twitter)

(Tarek Fatah – Twitter)

(credit - Blazingcatfur)

(credit – Blazingcatfur)

She had been affiliated with various organizations whose purpose is the Islamic takeover of the West. She is a member of Jamaat-e-Islami, a well-known organization designated as a terrorist group by the Canada and other countries. Recently the Canadian branch of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) lost its charitable status for financing the terrorists from Jamaat-e-Islami. Ms. Ishaq even works for the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), another Muslim organization with extremist goals. Shortly after Mr. Fatah published his revelations, the Toronto blogger Blazingcatfur, who has been monitoring Muslim extremism in Canada for years, posted a detailed description of the Islamic spider web, in which Ms. Ishak and her friends operate. You can get all the grim details from that post.

The bottom line is that the media and the “progressive” activists have been duped again by the Islamists or maybe they just don’t care what may happen with Canada. Here we have another sinister attempt by Muslim organizations to change our laws and traditions little by little and bring us one step closer to their barbaric sharia law.

I am sure those Islamists are scoffing at the stupidity of the Canadians who allow their country to be taken so easily. Of course, most Canadians can see through that Muslim scheme, but the problem is that those who are supposed to be the conscience of Canada – the media and the intellectuals – fall so easy for those Muslim tricks.

Let’s take as an example the feminists. As activists who have dedicated their lives to the liberation of disadvantaged women, one may expect that they will condemn the oppressive niqab and support Harper government’s work on limiting its negative impact. On October 9 an opinion piece signed by 28 such activists was published by the Toronto Star. They went out of their way to defend the veiled gargoyles:

“The election rhetoric based on fear-mongering against women who wear niqab only has traction if we all collude with its false conclusions.

It turns women’s safety and rights into a political game that distracts from the realities. More lastingly, it has stigmatized a specific population of Canadians.

Far from advancing equality and stopping violence against women, it appears to have unleashed hate. The women attacked since the government’s “Barbaric Cultures tip line” was introduced know this only too well.

The sad truth is that globally, violence against women meets the United Nations definition of a Global Pandemic. Canada is no innocent in this. It is a legacy of Canada’s colonial past that there are more than 1,200 missing and murdered Indigenous women. It is Canada where every six days a woman is killed by an intimate. It is in Canada that 460,000 women are sexually assaulted each year.

If there is any one culture to be blamed here, it is the culture of patriarchy.”

It’s funny that some of the signatories are socialist feminist troglodytes who started their activism in the 1960’s-1970’s, like Barbara Hall, Michelle Lansberg, Winnie Ng, Arlene Perly Rae, and Judy Rebick. In those times the struggle was for employment equality, the type they supposedly had in the communist countries, and the best known manifestation of the fights was bra-burning. One may argue that bra-burning would stigmatize the small-breasted portion of the female population. However, I wouldn’t think that those socialists imagined even in their wildest dreams that one day they will support the niqabs in the Muslim countries or in the West. Just a few decades later the same people side with the most repulsive Muslim fanatics. The rotten corpse of feminism continues to poison our society and opens the way to its capitulation. They are even ready to shut down any opportunity to alert the government like the “Barbaric Cultures tip line.”

They would rather see women suffer in silence and anonymity than to disturb the sacred cow of multiculturalism. That’s the policy established by the Indian grievance industry (two of its promoters, Christa Big Canoe and Pam Palmater, also signed the statement). Instead of trashing the government over the missing Indian women, they may try looking into the lenient way of treatment of Indian criminals who quickly end up back in their communities to kill even more of their women.

While for activists it is an occupation to argue about issues, intellectuals are supposed to provide objective assessment of the facts. However, reading the piece by the prominent Canadian journalist and commentator Andrew Coyne, it is hard to find in it many rational thoughts:

“That, in a nutshell, is the niqab issue. It was a ridiculous issue when the numbers of women involved were thought to be in the dozens. It is a more ridiculous issue now that it has been confirmed the actual number of women to have been refused citizenship for failing to uncover since 2011 when the policy was introduced is two.

Of course, in one sense the issue is deadly serious. It is obviously serious to the women in question, for whom it is a matter of the most profound importance that they keep their face covered in public an obligation that goes far beyond mere modesty. By contrast, to yield on this point is, for the rest of us, an infinitesimal concession.

No one else’s life is made the poorer because, somewhere in Canada, a women [sic] is swearing allegiance to this country with her face covered. If the federal Conservatives hadn’t made an issue of it, none of those now raising blue hell at this insult to their tender sensibilities would even have been aware of it.”

Nothing to see here, folks. The clever Mr. Coyne lectures you from his high pedestal that you are too stupid and petty if you are bothered by an insignificant issue like the niqab. It’s just an innocent personal quirk like the optional bra. He doesn’t seem to notice that the niqab is just a small part of the complete Muslim package, which aims at a slow transformation of our institutions according to the requirements of the sharia law. In many European countries that process is advancing with alarming speed. Thanks to deceptive or blind intellectuals like Mr. Coyne the Islamists will continue unobstructed to advance with their “reforms” using stooges like Ms. Ishaq.

In one of the paragraphs that follow, the rational discourse completely leaves the article:

“…It should not need restating, but perhaps it does: in a liberal society, it is not sufficient to restrict another’s rights that their behaviour or dress or custom is off-putting to you, or that you find their beliefs abhorrent, or that they and their kind make you feel ill at ease. You are free to think those things, and to say them; but unless they have violated your rights you are not free to limit theirs. Absent some identifiable harm “and the critics have yet to identify any specific harm to themselves or anyone arising from the swearing of an oath under a veil” there is no basis in Canadian law to ban the niqab, at citizenship ceremonies or elsewhere.”

As I already pointed out, the niqab is an important element of the most barbaric forms of Islam. It is not a fashion statement. It denigrates women and turns them into “faceless entities,” a term the anti-sharia Muslim activist Homa Arjomand used at a conference I attended a few years ago. The niqab is a threatening political statement declaring hostility toward the norms and values of our society. That is why it is imposed so aggressively in many Muslim countries. Again, ordinary people can clearly see that, but Mr. Coyne can’t.

His argument is that something like the niqab could be rejected only if it does specific harm, otherwise we must accept it, no matter how abhorrent it is. Following that logic, we should allow anybody wearing a KKK or SS uniform to appear anywhere, but we don’t because even though those outfits don’t cause harm, they symbolize values which are foreign to our traditions. Why should the symbol of Muslim barbarism be treated any different?

In the end of the article Mr. Coyne totally loses his mind:

“It would be one thing if the women who insist on their right to wear the niqab at the citizenship ceremony, to the point of going to court to defend it, were in fact being forced to wear it. But there is no evidence of this: quite the contrary. Far from meek and submissive, they give every sign of being quite obstreperously independent, rock-ribbed individualists, willing to assert their rights even in the face of a hostile majority.

We talk a lot about Canadian values in this debate. I am inclined to think that, in their own way, it is the niqabistes who best embody those values. In their ornery unwillingness to bend to others’ sensitivities, in their insistence on going their own way on a matter of principle, those women are in the finest Canadian tradition of hellraising. I think we ought to let them be.”

Now it turns out that the aggressive Muslim fanatics, who are dismantling Canada stone by stone, deserve our admiration for their persistence. Thinking that women have a burning desire to wear those grotesque body bags is naïve. The only advantage is that if you wear something like that, you don’t need to do laundry very often (the stench that often comes from such people on a Toronto bus in July confirms that observation). Mr. Coyne goes even further by declaring the stinky niqabists the best embodiment of the Canadian values.

The niqab trend is just another awesome form of “hellraising.” That Canadian tradition has surely evolved in a spectacular way – from demonstrations and bra-burning parties a few decades ago we had advanced to promotion of a dress code imposed by those who behead dissidents, stone women, rape children, and throw homosexuals from the roofs. And Mr. Coyne finds this to be an occasion for jubilation. He is not alone.

It’s no wonder that with the ignorant idiots who control the media and the education system Canada is disappearing little by little.

© 2015

Be Sociable, Share!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *