WARNING! GRAPHIC PHOTO BELOW
In its Friday’s issue The Globe and Mail, the self-proclaimed national newspaper of Canada, published an “opinion” piece by Sheema Khan titled Niqab Rage: Beyond the Veil in Canada’s Courtrooms. Since the paper won’t publish my opinion about it, I’ll have to place it here.
That’s an article in the series supposed to show the diversity of our country. And Ms. Khan clearly expresses that diversity, for starters, her hijab is prominently displayed in her picture, beside that, her opinion is no less diverse.
She starts with the description of a “shocking” case in France. In a department store a 63-year-old retired teacher named Jeanne Ruby approached Shaika al-Suwaidi, a veiled Arab woman, and asked her to remove her veil. When she refused, Ruby chased her and ripped off her niqab, slapped her and scratched her. Then she said: “Now I can see your face.”
There have been other isolated cases like this (statistics show that attacks against Muslims are rare), but Ms. Khan has carefully picked this one. Why? The Jewish last name “Ruby” fits neatly into the traditional “progressive” paradigm: a rabid and mean Jew attacks again a quiet and helpless Arab. Of course, she doesn’t state it explicitly, but the lefties and the Muslims reading are not going to miss the association.
From this case Ms. Khan makes a conclusion that in my opinion puts her in the category of bigots: “While Ms. Ruby may be a heroine to many in the land of liberté, égalité, fraternité and beyond, her actions mirror those of extremists who throw acid into the faces of women who refuse to wear the niqab.”
So ripping off a veil is the same as throwing acid into the face. Sorry, but this statement is too idiotic even from the point of view of the staunchest defenders of moral relativism.
I am sure that Shaika al-Suwaidi’s husband has a closet full with a limitless supply of the rags she uses to cover her face. It won’t be any problem to replace the ripped one. On the other hand, here is a picture of a Muslim woman disfigured by acid:
Do you see the difference? No hospital in the world has storage full of spare human eyes, so the damage is final and irreparable. And Ms. Khan has the nerve to state that both types of action “mirror” each other?! That’s beyond bigoted…
And while Ms. Khan is lamenting a store brawl, people around the world who belong to her religion are committing heinous crimes. In the month of September, 2010, Muslim extremists have executed 172 jihadist attacks (link) in 23 countries against people from 5 different religions, they killed 703 and critically injured 1454 people. Islam has the highest occurrence of religious violence compared to any other religion (in case Wahida from CIC reads this, I should say again that the EXTREMISTS commit the crimes, but there are simply more of them in Islam and that doesn’t make me feel safer). Then why none of the clerics, organization or intellectuals of that religion, like Ms. Khan, condemns that?
Of course, we can only guess her position on that, but the case of the evil French Jew is just a prelude to Sheema Khan’s main issue in the article: allowing a veiled woman to testify in a Canadian court.
She is ecstatic that the judges from the court of appeal, Theo Fleury, Sheldon Kennedy and Nathalie Simard, allowed a niqab wearing woman to appear in court when facing the relatives she accuses of sexually assaulting her. She even says that before that decision, the “victim” was “pilloried for her choice of dress”. That sounds like a comment on the cases when a woman wore in court a skirt, which was too short, or showed too much cleavage.
But this case is much worse, the niqab is a disgusting symbol of oppression that turns a woman into a non-entity, an anonymous symbol of the sub-animal position she is supposed to take in the Muslim society. It’s a shame that the “brave” bra-burning feminists in Canada never took a stand against that monstrosity (of course, since the extremist Muslims can bomb you, it’s much easier to fight hapless white males).
Moreover, that garb is not accepted universally, many Muslim countries prohibit it. Yet, Sheema Khan firmly defends it.
If we accept that travesty in our courts, what is stopping any other religious wacko from demanding the same rights? Don’t forget it, in the English common law, a precedent is an important basis for future decisions.
Let’s see, then shouldn’t be a problem to accommodate the Doukhobors, a Russian Christian sect active in Canada, whose members liked to burn down buildings and when in court, they stripped naked. What’s wrong with accommodating them?
What would be the problem, if somebody states on a T-shirt: “Kill the Jews!” or “Kill the Muslims!”? Although certain people will like the first slogan, neither of them will be allowed in court.
The desire to present the niqab in court as a Charter of Rights issue is a sneaky attempt to re-introduce the sharia law in Canada. In 2005 the Muslims conducted an aggressive campaign to introduce sharia in Ontario. At the time, the Premier McGuinty had the courage to flatly reject it. Now they are coming back, but in a gentle way. Today they managed to impose the niqab in the courtroom, tomorrow they will try to introduce the principle that a woman can get from an inheritance only half of what a man gets. Maybe the stoning would come next as a respectable feature of a different legal culture, which deserves our respect.
The niqab has no place in the Canadian courts. The complainant would be more than welcome to plead her case in niqab in Saudi Arabia, but I can only guess the number of leashes she would get for accusing her relatives.
Whoever paid Ms. Khan to promote sharia in this article didn’t get his or her money’s worth.
The ignorant idiots who think they should bend over to any Muslim extremist demand in order to avoid being killed will quietly accept whatever is given to them. However, the people who still can think would easily see through that pathetic propaganda (I hope that hey are the majority).
Ms. Khan, if you are willing to respond, you are more than welcome to do so!