The Niqab Is Islamism's Flag

[Anonymous]

Bless Tarek Fatah's heart for holding that 8th century ideology called Islam and their Western apologists feet to the fire.

In Khaled Hosseini's soul-piercing novel A Thousand Splendid Suns, the character Nana, a poor, unwed mother, tells her five-year-old daughter, Mariam: "Learn this now and learn it well, my daughter: Like a compass needle that points north, a man's accusing finger always finds a woman. Always. You remember that, Mariam."



Hosseini's best-selling novel was about life in Afghanistan, but in the 30 words above he sums up the way men govern the lives of women across much of the Muslim world.



Like Mariam, millions of Muslim girls are told very early in life by their mothers that their place in society is one of submission; submission not to God, but to man.



Hosseini's 2007 book remained at number one on the New York Times bestseller list for four months.



In its first week on the market, it sold over one million copies.



But if there is someone who seems not to have read the novel, it's Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.



Trudeau's recent championing of the niqab as a basic human right has aided Islamism in Canada and undermined millions of liberal Muslims around the world.



This includes the women in my own family, not to mention my late mother, who threw away the niqab in 1946.



The controversy began with the case of Zunera Ishaq, a Pakistani immigrant who wanted to take her Canadian citizenship oath with her face covered.



On being told she could not do so, she went to court and won the right not to remove her veil, while taking the oath.



Ottawa has appealed this lower court decision with Prime Minister Stephen Harper mounting a vigorous attack on the niqab.



He told the House of Commons:



"This is a society that is transparent, open and where people are equal, and I think we find that (not uncovering one's face while taking the oath of citizenship) offensive."



A few days later, he told the Commons, "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?"



Harper emphasized many moderate Muslims agreed with the government's position of banning the niqab from citizenship courts.



For his part, Trudeau tried to portray Harper as racist, equating Muslim women not being permitted to wear face masks in citizenship court to the plight of Jews who fled Nazi Germany, but were not allowed to enter Canada.



Trudeau could not have been more wrong.



While the Jews on board the St. Louis were not permitted to land in Canada, and went back to near certain death, the Muslim immigrant, Zunera Ishaq, was welcomed to Canada after leaving the Islamic State of Pakistan.



Leaving her specific case aside, what is it about this piece of cloth that triggers so much self-righteous angst among so many followers of Islam?



How could the covering of a woman's head or face — which is not a requirement of the Qur'an — end up as the most defining symbol of Islam?



And what is the rationale behind the obsession with the niqab among the world's Islamists?



The fact is, the niqab and, I would argue, the hijab, are today not just medieval symbols of female servitude; they also serve as flags of Islamism, dictated by the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world and its equivalent in South Asia, the Jamat-e-Islami.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/17/the-niqab-is-the-flag-of-islamism">http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/17/th ... f-islamism">http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/17/the-niqab-is-the-flag-of-islamism

[Anonymous]

I can't believe anyone would seriously object to NOT wearing their dark ages face mask while taking the citizenship oath. Is this really why Canadian soldiers fought wars for? For a misogynistic, barbaric ideology could piss on our values??

It's just a piece of cloth.



So why the commotion over the Conservative government placing a ban on the face-covering niqab at citizenship swearing-in ceremonies?



Some might even argue a token ban in one specific ceremony has little to no bearing on women wearing a niqab in public.



But the niqab carries tremendous political and social symbolism. This means judicious restriction on its use by the government can deliver a potent message about what it values.



This message is neither racist nor sexist.



On the contrary, it opposes the segregation and marginalization of Muslim women and the associated misogyny.



The niqab contradicts all that Canada stands for: equal opportunity for women of any cultural or ethnic origin.



While it is fitting for Tory MP Larry Miller to apologize for the abrasiveness of his remarks about the niqab, he is also correct in holding ground on the essence of his comment that, "anyone being sworn in as a new citizen of our country must uncover their faces."



Those defending the niqab advance the individual freedoms argument.



Those advocating the ban are driven by universal and modernist values that envisage a society without restrictions on women — even self-imposed ones.



They see the banning of the niqab at citizenship ceremonies as a symbolic affirmation of progressive values.



However, the most refreshing new angles on this debate are being provided by Munir Pervaiz, president of the secular Muslim Canadian Congress.



(I am a current director and former president of the Congress.)



Pervaiz repudiates special privileges for niqabi women.



For example, he asks why a niqabi woman should wait for women police officers to process traffic infractions, in case she is stopped on a street.



Why must law enforcement wait till a woman police officer is found?



Would the niqabi woman be willing to wait in a police cruiser or cell till such arrangements are made?



Should she resist if she is taken into temporary custody and charged for interfering with the process?



Pervaiz also states that, "Courts have strict rules of attire. And the government ... can make regulations to govern conduct in a court."



Courts require people wear attire that shows respect for formality and tradition.



For example, the wearing of hats is discouraged in a courtroom, and no one would rationally complain that this restricts individual freedoms.



Why must niqabi women insist on the niqab at all times, in the face of established norms of attire?



The main objection of those advocating for a niqab ban is that it empowers Islamism by making special accommodations for women in deference to an agenda that is anti-women.



Even many niqabi women acknowledge the Qur'an does not mandate the niqab.



What is really happening here is an attempt to influence government institutions by imposing an extreme version of Islam on one aspect of it — dress codes.



Islamism's pernicious agenda seeks to entrench what it deems are Islamic symbols.



It's part of a strategy to assert its obscurantist values, to further its "us versus them" outlook.



On the other hand, shunning the niqab and burka asserts universal values.



Taking Canadian citizenship rightly requires all inductees to affirm Canadian notions of dignity and respect for all.



Doing so in a niqab is incongruous and disrespectful.



The government is right to appeal the lower court's decision to allow it.​

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/19/niqab-is-about-our-values-not-race">http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/19/ni ... s-not-race">http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/19/niqab-is-about-our-values-not-race

[Anonymous]

If done right and we ignore all the usual anti-Harper partisanship noise, Bill C-51 could be quite an effective tool that gives us the tools to deal with threats that many other countries already have.

In debating the federal government's anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-51, we would do well to remember that there is a reason even Pierre Trudeau insisted on protecting freedom of expression rather than "freedom of speech" in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: unlike the United States, there was a broad consensus that we did not want to afford neo-Nazis constitutional protection to march through Jewish neighbourhoods (National Socialist Party of America vs. Village of Skokie, 1977). Similarly, we do not want salafist Jihadists abusing their adulterated interpretation of Islam to lure the unsuspecting back to the moral ice age.



Democracies, by definition, cherish the Lockean principle of limited state. Its intervention needs to be justified in an effort to advance freedom (and, subsequently, equality and justice). Life is the ultimate human right: It is difficult to enjoy your freedom when you are dead. No one knew that better than John Locke himself: He fled Oxford fearing for his life, only to return from his Dutch refuge on the same ship as William of Orange.



Far from creating a police state, C-51 is merely getting Canada caught up to the rest of the civilized world. Living thousands of miles from the world's hotspots, Canadians have until lately enjoyed the privilege of being able to bury their heads in the sand. But globalization has made Canada as vulnerable to violent extremism as our allies. The difference is that most of them have long had in place the provisions in C-51 that have caused such heated debate in Canada: measures of detention that are clearly distinct from arrest, risk-diminishment mandates for security intelligence, more robust provisions to stop people from boarding planes, and very robust provisions for sharing data.



While controversy on C-51 abounds, all critics agree on one fundamental question: "How can the government assure me that my rights and freedoms have not been violated?" The question is hardly new. Roman satirist Juvenal famously probed: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who is watching the watchers? The government points to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The problem with SIRC is it has (almost no) jurisdiction beyond the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.



First, C-51 should extend SIRC's remit to be able to follow intelligence that originated with CSIS throughout the Canadian security food chain. For example, within the RCMP, SIRC should be able to follow the entire "intelligence to evidence" thread. To be clear: SIRC should not have purview over entire RCMP investigations that were based on or involve CSIS evidence. SIRC's sole responsibility should be the ability to follow CSIS intelligence throughout federal agencies to ensure that intelligence is handled in accordance with the law and the Constitution.



Second, the SIRC reporting process needs to be sped up. Many of SIRC's reports become public domain, but it takes a couple of years. Due to the steps involved, that glacial pace is unlikely to change. In the interim, why not follow the example of the United Kingdom: clear select members of the opposition to read SIRC's report (and the CSE Inspector General's, for that matter).



The precedent for clearing select members of the opposition was set during the Afghan detainee debate. Since parliamentary procedure would prohibit this being done in committee, the opposition instead forwards to the Prime Minister a list of names from which the Prime Minister picks at his or her discretion. Rather than having to trust the Prime Minister, Canadians would sleep better if, for example, former Solicitor General Wayne Easter and well-versed defence critic and lawyer Jack Harris had a chance to read these reports in a timely fashion and corroborate that they are satisfied that Canadians' rights and freedoms had, indeed, not been violated.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/done-right-c-51-can-balance-freedom-and-security/article23445265/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e23445265/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/done-right-c-51-can-balance-freedom-and-security/article23445265/

[Anonymous]

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/muslim_rally_Mothers.jpg">

[Anonymous]

I can't believe anyone would seriously object to NOT wearing their dark ages face mask while taking the citizenship oath. Is this really why Canadian soldiers fought wars for? For a misogynistic, barbaric ideology could piss on our values??

It's just a piece of cloth.



So why the commotion over the Conservative government placing a ban on the face-covering niqab at citizenship swearing-in ceremonies?



Some might even argue a token ban in one specific ceremony has little to no bearing on women wearing a niqab in public.



But the niqab carries tremendous political and social symbolism. This means judicious restriction on its use by the government can deliver a potent message about what it values.



This message is neither racist nor sexist.



On the contrary, it opposes the segregation and marginalization of Muslim women and the associated misogyny.



The niqab contradicts all that Canada stands for: equal opportunity for women of any cultural or ethnic origin.



While it is fitting for Tory MP Larry Miller to apologize for the abrasiveness of his remarks about the niqab, he is also correct in holding ground on the essence of his comment that, "anyone being sworn in as a new citizen of our country must uncover their faces."



Those defending the niqab advance the individual freedoms argument.



Those advocating the ban are driven by universal and modernist values that envisage a society without restrictions on women — even self-imposed ones.



They see the banning of the niqab at citizenship ceremonies as a symbolic affirmation of progressive values.



However, the most refreshing new angles on this debate are being provided by Munir Pervaiz, president of the secular Muslim Canadian Congress.



(I am a current director and former president of the Congress.)



Pervaiz repudiates special privileges for niqabi women.



For example, he asks why a niqabi woman should wait for women police officers to process traffic infractions, in case she is stopped on a street.



Why must law enforcement wait till a woman police officer is found?



Would the niqabi woman be willing to wait in a police cruiser or cell till such arrangements are made?



Should she resist if she is taken into temporary custody and charged for interfering with the process?



Pervaiz also states that, "Courts have strict rules of attire. And the government ... can make regulations to govern conduct in a court."



Courts require people wear attire that shows respect for formality and tradition.



For example, the wearing of hats is discouraged in a courtroom, and no one would rationally complain that this restricts individual freedoms.



Why must niqabi women insist on the niqab at all times, in the face of established norms of attire?



The main objection of those advocating for a niqab ban is that it empowers Islamism by making special accommodations for women in deference to an agenda that is anti-women.



Even many niqabi women acknowledge the Qur'an does not mandate the niqab.



What is really happening here is an attempt to influence government institutions by imposing an extreme version of Islam on one aspect of it — dress codes.



Islamism's pernicious agenda seeks to entrench what it deems are Islamic symbols.



It's part of a strategy to assert its obscurantist values, to further its "us versus them" outlook.



On the other hand, shunning the niqab and burka asserts universal values.



Taking Canadian citizenship rightly requires all inductees to affirm Canadian notions of dignity and respect for all.



Doing so in a niqab is incongruous and disrespectful.



The government is right to appeal the lower court's decision to allow it.​

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/19/niqab-is-about-our-values-not-race">http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/19/ni ... s-not-race">http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/19/niqab-is-about-our-values-not-race

I don't see what is wrong with anyone wearing that garment?

 ac_unsure

[Romero]

There's never been a problem with wearing it yet!



Many people don't realize that she did show her face to a female citizenship court officer. All necessary identification and documentation is given.

[Romero]

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/muslim_rally_Mothers.jpg">

Photoshopped. It's sad that some need to mislead with such hatred to make their point.

[Anonymous]

There's never been a problem with wearing it yet!



Many people don't realize that she did show her face to a female citizenship court officer. All necessary identification and documentation is given.

I have no problem with it either.....in Saudi Arabia. She's in Canada and if she cannot follow our customs and way of life even for the oath of citizenship then maybe she would be happier in the dark ages shit hole she came from. I would gladly pay higher taxes to have her return to where she came from.

[Anonymous]

Photoshopped. It's sad that some need to mislead with such hatred to make their point.

You mean like this one from the TYEE?

http://thetyee.cachefly.net/Opinion/2015/01/09/Clark_Plane.jpg">

[Anonymous]

Of course we don't need photoshopped images to know what Islam commands it's followers to think of us infidels.

http://faithfreedom.org/Gallery/cartoon-protest1.jpg">

http://faithfreedom.org/Gallery/freedomofexpression.jpg">

http://faithfreedom.org/Gallery/cartoon-protest2.jpg">

http://faithfreedom.org/Gallery/cartoon-protest3.jpg">

http://faithfreedom.org/Gallery/cartoon-protest4.jpg">

[cc]

Q likes women kept down ...... ruled by the males of their society



Weak males can't stand their women being seen as desirable ... insecure moonbeams .. insecure islamics ... all the same .... getting harder and harder  to distinguish between them as time goes on

[cc]

I don't see what is wrong with anyone wearing that garment?

You are aware that it's purpose is to control "inferior" women chattels?

[Anonymous]

I don't see what is wrong with anyone wearing that garment?

You are aware that it's purpose is to control "inferior" women chattels?

I doubt she does, but Romero is aware of it. I can accept ignorance, but not hypocrites "Tomming" for that sick, misogynistic ideology.

[cc]

The Leger poll, for the Association for Canadian Studies, indicates 70% of respondents agree with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's strong view against wearing the niqab while taking the oath to become Canadian.



Canadians agreed with the prime minister 70%, according to the Leger poll taken Tuesday to Thursday.



And 60% of the 1,711 respondents went even further, agreeing "the niqab should be banned in public spaces"



Only moonbeams and islamics want such an ugly symbol of Misogyny Inc.

[Anonymous]

The Leger poll, for the Association for Canadian Studies, indicates 70% of respondents agree with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's strong view against wearing the niqab while taking the oath to become Canadian.



Canadians agreed with the prime minister 70%, according to the Leger poll taken Tuesday to Thursday.



And 60% of the 1,711 respondents went even further, agreeing "the niqab should be banned in public spaces"

That's good, but I don't put a lot of stock in polling. All it would take is a bunch of well-financed, political enemies of the PM to turn the tide as we have seen with C-51. Besides governing by polling of idiots is how you get elected not how you do what is right for the nation.