Thursday, May 9, 2019

Royal Family Canada's Biggest Bargain

Watching the wall-to-wall coverage of the birth of the royal baby to Prince Harry and Meghan I am reminded that the Royals represent one of the biggest bargains that our society owns.

Of course, there are the naysayers and spoilers who bitch and moan that the royal family are parasites that cost taxpayers millions and return nothing to us.
They are of course wrong...dead wrong.

That enmity towards them is perpetrated by that section of society who hate royalty on principle, because of its rank and privilege, a perceived outrage to modernism, good sense and egalitarianism.

But the argument that the Royal family costs taxpayers something significant is more of a red herring than the truth because when it comes to costing taxpayers anything, it is a mere pittance, about a $1.44 per person in Canada and about the same in Great Britain.

For Britain, the royal family is the greatest bargain on Earth, bringing millions of tourists to England to see the changing of the guard and touring royal castles and sites including the Tower of London and the crown jewels, generating billions and billions of pounds in revenue.

But more to the point, the royal family is worth its weight in gold when it comes to entertainment for the many of us who love everything royal and follow accounts of their lives, with heightened interest in royal births and the pomp, circumstance and pageantry of royal weddings.

If the royal family sold worldwide television rights to their weddings, I daresay they would pay for their upkeep in spades and if the CBC put the wedding of Harry and Meaghan on pay per view, how many millions of Canadians would pay?

Luckily we get to live their lives vicariously for free and for little girls and little girls at heart who dream of being a princess and perhaps being won over by their Prince Charming, having real-life royals makes the fantasy possible.

Now I know you feminists and liberationists are cringing at the thought of such antiquated notions, but the beauty of this world is that it takes all kinds and people and those who love and revere the royals, or those who are just entertained by their lifestyle have just as much right to enjoy their indulgence as those who watch the Kardashians or those who watch Game of Thrones or Hockey Night in Canada.

To those who argue that it isn't the governments role to fund entertainment that appeals only to a segment of the population, I would remind them that that is exactly what the government does, funding entertainment and the arts to the tune of over 5 billion dollars year, or a whopping $142 for each Canadian, through entities like the Canada Council for the Arts, paying for programs like museums, ballet, native culture which by the way, few Canadians partake or care for.

Money spent by the government on the royals is a bargain when one considers how much pleasure it brings to so many Canadians.

What remains surprising and a complete anathema to Quebec nationalists is that this fascination extends to francophone Canada, including Quebec.
Back in 2011, the streets of Quebec city were lined for William and Kate, as local francophones were thrilled by the couple's visit.
In fact interest in the British royal family extends across the world, across all languages, cultures, religions. I daresay that if North Korea allowed coverage of the Royal wedding the country would come to a standstill.

Why there is so much interest in the Royal family is a mystery, but the attraction is impossible to deny.
I'm sure that more people in Canada know the name of Harry and Meaghan's new baby than those who can name one of our Prime Minister's children.

You know I'm right.

At any rate, those who complain about the Royal family are less hateful of them than they are of us who enjoy following the exploits of the Royal family.

For haters, it is a complete betrayal of post-modernist anti-monarchists sentiment that represents a complete humiliation to modern feminism and a reminder that they cannot control human nature or sentiment.

Too bad for them and good for us.

Wednesday, May 1, 2019

Quebec's War on Islam

Quebec Premier François Legault has been leaning hard on the idea that a majority of Quebecers are in favour of his Bill-21, the proposed law limiting Muslim head and face coverings by civil servants, peace officers and teachers, those public and semi-public employees in so-called positions of authority.

He's probably right, Quebec is in no mood to see Mulsim orthodoxy grow into a meaningful part of Quebec society.

Let's first start by telling it like it is.

I refer only to Muslim female head coverings because this is what the law is really about, a limitation on Islamic orthodoxy, with all other religious restrictions targeting Jews, Sikhs and even Christians really nothing more than a smokescreen meant to offset protest that only one religion is targeted, which of course it is.

As for Orthodox Jews and Sikhs, pertaining to the proposed law, they are irrelevant, the numbers wearing kippahs or turbans in Quebec are minuscule and for those who do, there are precious few that fall under the dictates of the proposed law.
Most Quebecers outside greater Montreal have never seen a real live person wearing a kippah or turban and the number of Quebec adherents doing so is falling precipitously.
For next-generation Jews, adhering to kosher food restrictions and wearing kippahs doesn't fit in with modern life. For Sikhs, following the five tenets of Sikhism is onerous, with the prohibition on cutting all body hair a mean task, especially for women.

However, for Muslim women, orthodoxy endures and although the number of Muslim wearing hijabs is a statistic impossible to come by, the number is not inconsiderable.
In Montreal hijabs are a common sight, unlike the ultra-rare kippah and turban.

In the public debate, one in which the francophone media has largely been supportive of the Premier, the reality of Quebec's vehement opposition to Islamic orthodoxy is glossed over or willfully ignored because both the Premier, his party, its followers and media minions wish to maintain the fallacy that the debate is over a few rags of clothing.

And so, while Jewish, Sikh and Christian symbols are part of the law, you'd never know it from the public discussion.
I have never heard a Quebec politician, journalist or even nationalist say publicly that the kippah makes them uncomfortable.
Quite a difference to the Hijab where bashing is common and where even a sitting Quebec provincial judge felt empowered to throw defendant out of court for wearing a hijab, resulting in the good judge being brought up on disciplinary charges by the judicial council.
"Quebec's newly appointed minister responsible for the status of women is standing by her position that the Muslim hijab is a symbol of oppression.
Speaking to reporters after being named to the portfolio Tuesday, Isabelle Charest said the head scarf " is not something that women should be wearing."
"In February 2007, soccer player Asmahan Mansour, part of the team Nepean U12 Hotspurs, was expelled from a Quebec tournament for wearing her headscarf. Quebec soccer referees also ejected an 11-year-old Ottawa girl while she was watching a match, which generated a public controversy."
Make no mistake, Quebec's opposition to orthodox Islam is deep and well-rooted with a majority of franco-Quebecers not just suspicious, but downright fearful of having proponents establish themselves in Quebec as a meaningful minority.

Those Muslim women who wear the Hijab, the Niqab, the Chador or other Islamic dress that serve to hide women's bodies from the public are viewed with utter disdain and rejection by a Quebec public which utterly rejects the perceived misogynist philosophy behind it.

Of course, many Muslim Quebec women who wear the uniform of orthodoxy proclaim that they do so by choice and perhaps for some it is, but for most, it is not a choice, but rather a family decision made by the head of the family, the all-powerful patriarch.
Whether they wear the symbols of orthodox Islam by choice or by force, it really makes no difference because of it is the underlying values that the dress embodies, the fact that women must hide their body in public that remains the bugbear.

Does the rejection of this orthodox philosophy make Quebec Islamophobic?

I would remind readers that Quebec does not have a problem with Muslims.
The majority of mainstream Muslims are well established and peaceably entrenched in Quebec society, with the majority living and working in French and employed in mainstream jobs both in the private and public sector.
That the veil is repressive, unnecessary or irrelevant is a view shared by the majority of mainstream Muslim women who hold values commiserate with those of the Quebec majority, English, French or minority.
Values that hold women equal to men.

Would one call those Muslims who oppose the veil as a symbol of female repression, Islamophobes as well?

Now before the liberals and the progressives amongst you get your hackles up in protest, holding that everyone is welcome to believe what they want, it just isn't so.
Society puts limits on acceptable behaviour and where exactly that line is, even though it's a difficult line to demarcate.

We don't allow slavery, polygamy, child marriage, criminality, forced marriage, female circumcision or exploitation of minors, to say the least.
We do not even allow certain 'unacceptable' thoughts or views to be expressed in literature.
Canadian customs officials are renowned for seizing books and magazines at the border because of the glorification of child pornography, even if those works don't contain any images and where no child was harmed in its production.
In other words, written thoughts about sex with children is deemed illegal.
We don't allow (or we are supposed to not allow)  sermons by clergy that promote hate or encourage violence.

So the underlying values of orthodox religion are fair game for debate and we as a society are as much justified in opposing its misogynistic attitudes as we are in opposing other behaviour deemed unacceptable.

The 10,000 strong Hassidic sect of Judaism in Quebec have had a running battle for years with the education department over the education of children who are forced to pore of religious texts for the majority of the long school day to the detriment of the three R's and where girls are segregated and taught that their only option in life is to stay home and pump out babies, one after another.
These children are ill-equipped to make free choice about their future when the time comes and remain prisoners of imposed religious dogma by limitations on their education and skills.
Sadly the Quebec government has actually treated that sect with kidd gloves, fearing a backlash from the media and the mainstream Jewish community which turns a blind eye to what can only be viewed as child abuse.
As for orthodox Muslims, it is common for mainstream Quebec Imans to preach openly about female subservience and obligation, with some imams even organizing clandestine polygamous marriages.

For the Anglo community, opposition by its institutions and leadership to Quebec's secular law is kneejerk, without much consideration to what the community really feels about the place of orthodox religion in Quebec.
While the proposed law is roundly criticized and rejected in the Anglo media in Quebec and across Canada, it remains a fact that the law has quite a bit of support.
While those who object to the proposed law throw around the word ISLAMOPHOBIA recklessly, those who support limitations on religious excess cannot be viewed as intolerant, perhaps quite the opposite.
Defending women and children from religious excess should be viewed as a noble and just cause and in Quebec the message is clear...
Religious dictates that penalize women and children are to be rejected and that those who support those ideals should be opposed.

I will close with one thought for those who complain that the Hijab cannot and should not be equated with religious intolerance.
Recently we have seen attacks by liberals on some individuals who wear Donald Trump's signature "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." hat which they view as a symbol of intolerance.

While we are all free to wear what we want, those who continue to wear the MAGA hat in public today are well aware of the message it is sending, even if the original basis of the hat was benign.

Right or wrong, wearing a MAGA hat in public sends a message, just as hijabs do and pretending they don't is disingenuous.

In Quebec, the war on orthodox religion has been declared.
It is a fight that has been brewing for quite some time and has a lot of support not only from the few who are intolerant, but the many who are tolerant and forward thinking, who oppose outdated and misogynist precepts as unacceptable in Quebec's modern society.

Friday, April 12, 2019

Hampstead City Council Ready to Be Mayor William Steinberg's Bitch

His promise to learn French... a promise not kept
Year's ago William Steinberg knocked on my door seeking my vote in the upcoming mayoral race in the town of Hampstead.
He had a minder trailing along with him (someone I like and respect, so I won't mention her name) to help intercept any uncomfortable questions and conversations and to answer any questions that might arise in French since he could not understand a word.

I asked him if it was true that he couldn't speak French to which his lovely minder jumped in to explain that because of a childhood hearing infirmity, Steinberg could never learn French. She assured me that now that he had secured a cochlear implant he would undertake to learn the language of Molliere should he be elected.

How on Earth could somebody in this day and age present himself as a potential mayoral candidate in Quebec without speaking French?

I was actually stunned that he had the chutzpah to run.

Not being a shy fellow I told him in no uncertain terms that he was unfit to serve and that his infirmity disqualified him from consideration.
While his minder played the infirmity card once again I told her that I could not vote for somebody who could not read or write because of dyslexia and I sure as Hell couldn't vote for someone who could not speak French.

You can imagine that the two of them looked at me as some kind of racist or insensitive lout as they shuffled off my porch rather sheepishly.

Through sheer effort and overwhelming resources, William Steinberg won the mayoralty, turning a sleepy part-time job into a full-time obsession for someone with too much free time and boatloads of money.

Now I'm not late to this debate, back in 2009 I wrote a piece on the mayor which pretty much summarized what I'm repeating here.
"Although Mr. Steinberg is somewhat deaf, he speaks English just fine. The truth is that he has lived a sheltered life of privilege and has never bothered to learn French, simply because he never needed to. Mr Steinberg has invoked the 'infirmity' excuse as successfully as a university co-ed, claiming 'womens' problems' in order to get out of a big test."   Read: Hampstead's Unilingual Mayor 
Hampstead infamous for large homes and English-only STOP signs
For those who never heard of Hampstead, it is a tiny, yet extremely wealthy sleepy suburb enclaved tightly between Cote Saint-Luc and Montreal's Snowdon district. The town which is less than two square kilometers is home to zero  businesses or stores and it's 7,000 residents live in about 2,500 expensive homes ranging from a million dollars in value up to five million and more, with municipal taxes ranging from over $10,000 to $50,000 and more per home.
The city may have the highest density of Jewish residents of any town in Canada and boy, they are rich.
Lise Ravary proclaimed in the Gazette a few days ago that up to 20% of the residents are Francophones, but this just isn't true. While the city's Jewish residents who come from Morocco may speak French, their kids go to private Jewish schools that are English. The lingua franca of the city is 100% English and the French signs and notices are merely formalities forced upon the city by Bill 101.

Hampstead is, of course, the least diverse city or town on the island of Montreal.
The 275 Filipino and Black residents who reside there represent 'the help' and of Canada' native population, there are of course zero residents.
As of late, there is an interesting Asian influx, where a significant percentage of resales are going to wealthy mainland Chinese families seeking a safe haven for their money. Nobody seems particularly perturbed, they are good neighbours with many using their million dollar homes for summer vacation only.

At any rate, if Mayor Steinberg committed a fault in his injudicious pronouncement about 'ethnic cleansing' it is that it has brought unwanted attention to our sleepy little hideaway, which for the longest time slid under the raider of those Quebec nationalists protesting White/English/Jewish privilege.

Make no mistake about Hampstead, the city is the most federalist town in Quebec, with the number of citizens voting for YES in the referendum restricted to as many as you can count on your fingers.

When it comes to provincial voting take a look at the choice this Hampstead neighbourhood made in the last election.

Yup, 95.6% of those Hampstead voters chose the Liberal party, a percentage that would make Joseph Stalin or Kim Jung Un jealous.

It isn't surprising that the mayor has remained steadfast in refusing to apologize for his remarks, he has the benefit of being unable to understand the most vocal of his critics, not speaking French that is.
For him, the protests are of no consequence having the proverbial  hard head of privilege while living in his ivory tower,

If Hamspteaders reject the mayor next election it won't be for his remarks about ethnic cleansing, it will be because of the unwanted publicity that he brought down on a town that just wants to fly under the radar.

And so the good mayor in a pique of resistance has called a special meeting of Hampstead city council for Monday where he will seek support for his mayoralty.

No, he won't ask for a resolution backing his use of the term 'ethnic cleansing," he is not that dumb.

What he will do is cleverly ask council for some resolution opposing Bill 21 and armed with a positive result he will brandish it as a vote of confidence.
The question now is whether the council members will fall for his ploy and give him what he seeks, a false vote of confidence.

It would take guts to defy the mayor, he is all-powerful in the town and refusing to take part in the farcical vote would register their individual disapproval and represent an official falling out with the mayor.

Will council members do the right thing or will they go along with the mayor's charade?
I'm not sure, but the fact that the mayor is proceeding with the gambit indicates to me that he's confident that Hampstead city council is his to control, like a pimp reigning supreme over his bitches.

Wednesday, April 3, 2019

Secular law will Violate Quebec's Own Charter of Rights & Freedoms

A lot has been said about the new secular bill proposed by the CAQ and backed by the vast majority of francophones in the province.
Premier Legault admitted that the bill would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and so to pre-empt any legal challenge, he promised to invoke the infamous 'notwithstanding clause,' which is in effect an escape clause allowing provinces to invoke legislation that contravenes certain charter dispositions for a period of five years.
"There is a clause that allows us to protect collective rights, to derogate from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of individuals. It has been done dozens of times before by several premiers, including Robert Bourassa. When we talk about protecting values, protecting our language, protecting what is different in Quebec, we must be ready to use it, "Premier Legault said in an impromptu press conference..." -Premier Legault
Section 33.
(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.
Now the Premier and almost all francophone commentators have been quick to support and defend the use of the notwithstanding clause as a legitimate tool, even while reminding everyone that Quebec never signed on to the Charter, which was in their opinion rammed down its throat unfairly by the majority in the ROC.
In effect, they argue that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is illegitimate as far as Quebec is concerned, yet invoking its escape clause is legitimate.

But lost in the discussion is the fact that the province has its own Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms that the proposed law would also violate, something that absolutely nobody in political circles or the media is wont to point out.

If your reaction is "Whaaaa????" you are not alone. 
It is understandable that politicians are disinclined to discuss a potential violation of the tenants of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms because it is purely a creation of the Quebec government, brought to force by the National Assembly in 1975 under Premier Robert Bourassa.
....."the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms stands at the pinnacle of Quebec's legal system. Only the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enjoys priority over the Quebec charter." - Wikipedia

An illicit violation of the charter, whether by a private party or by the provincial Crown, may give rise to a cease-and-desist order and to compensation for damages. Punitive damages may be awarded in case of an intentional and unlawful violation.

But alas, like the Canadian Charter, the Quebec charter has it's own escape clause found in
Article 52.
52. No provision of any Act, even subsequent to the Charter, may derogate from sections 1 to 38, except so far as provided by those sections, unless such Act expressly states that it applies despite the Charter.
All the Quebec government has to do is to include a passage in any bill expressly excluding its disposition from the provisions of the Quebec charter, something it has done over thirty times since the Charter's inception.

Some of those derogations have been mostly uncontroversial, like excluding lawyers from small claims court or providing closed-door legal proceedings surrounding cases involving children or families or forcing doctors to break confidentiality to identify patients who clearly should not be driving.

But the majority of cases involve language and identity, where the invocation of the derogation is necessary because the restrictions placed on individuals rights are clearly a violation of both the Canadian and Quebec charters.
Today we in Quebec live under eleven different laws that have benefitted from the notwithstanding elements of the Canadian and/or Quebec charters.

In relation to Bill 21, the proposed secular law, when the Premier invokes the spectre of invoking the notwithstanding clause in regards to the Canadian Charter, he stands on firm ground with his constituency, the majority of francophones and especially the media who loathe the Canadian Charter which they never approved.
But the Premier's dishonesty abounds when he fails to make reference to Quebec's Charter of Rights as if it did not exist. The Premier, nor his party, nor the media ever, ever mention the fact that the new law will require the invocation of the notwithstanding element of the Quebec charter to be attached to the law.

What is the takeaway from all this?
Premier Legault, his party and the media are being grossly dishonest in omitting mention of the QUEBEC CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS of which Bill-22 will contravene.

The Quebec government will have to use notwithstanding elements to bypass both the Canadian AND the Quebec Charters, but only dare mention publicly the Canadian Charter.

A sin of omission.

Now one of the things that bothers me about the law and the discussion surrounding it is, WHY?
Why is somebody wearing a tiny kippah or a fashionable headscarf (not a full face veil) so dangerous?
I haven't heard a cogent or reasonable argument that didn't descend into racism.
At any rate, I found this pearl amongst the many comments in favour of the ban in the Journal de Montreal which more or less sums up the idiocy surrounding the law.
"I'm afraid that a veiled teacher is trying to influence my son with her religious beliefs. The CAQ removes her veil and presto.... I have nothing to fear.
I am a Muslim and I am afraid that the judge who wears a kippah is not neutral in his judgment. Take off the kippah and I'm now sure of his neutrality.
I don't trust a policeman wearing a turban. Get rid of the turban and presto... my confidence is restored.
Are we really that stupid?"

Friday, March 29, 2019

Quebec Gleefully Launches War on Religion

The Quebec CAQ government bill to repress religious symbols worn by public officials in positions of power and the tabling of a bill placing restrictions on such religious garb and symbols was presented in Quebec's National Assembly to the wild applause of the majority of the the French media and the general public who relish the idea of dumping on minorities.

I am reminded of René Levesque who when presented Bill 101 by Camille Laurin noted privately that he was saddened by the effect of the bill on personal freedom of choice, even as he accepted its greater necessity.

Not so today with the restrictions placed on minorities over religious garb, as the general atmosphere in the French community can be best described as outright giddiness, where serving up a bitter pill to minorities is seen as a just reward for those who dare pollute Quebec's anti-religious foundation.

Say what you will, the effort is wildly popular in Quebec, where the majority of citizens view religious orthodoxy (especially in the Muslim community) as anti-democratic, misogynistic and one which promotes values inconsistent with the accepted norm in Quebec.

The French press is replete with scathing opinions directed towards Quebec anglos and English Canada for daring to object to these restrictions, reminding us that Quebec is its own nation and one which marches to a different tune.
The idea that Canada considers Quebec a racist society is particularly galling to Quebec media types who rail against those opinions, though try as I might, I haven't seen any editorial articles in the Canadian press expressing those opinions.

But Canadian politicians were quick to object with Justin Trudeau telling reporters that;
"It is unthinkable to me that in a free society we would legitimise discrimination against citizens based on their religion," Trudeau told reporters in Halifax on Thursday.
This had little effect on Quebecers whose minds are made up on the subject, and Trudeau's missive has the effect of driving voters towards the Bloc Quebecois, something that Andrew Scheer is thrilled over.
While saying that he disagreed with the bill, Scheer offered this lukewarm and low-keyed response.
 “The Quebec government has made a choice and now it is up to the elected members in Quebec to determine the fate of the bill,” he said.
Quebec politicians and their minions in the press have been front and center telling all who will listen that the bill is not anti-religion and certainly not anti-Muslim and that Quebec is an open and welcoming society. 
In this respect, they are preaching to the choir, (excuse the religious reference) because the reality is different and every now and then the truth spills out.
Quebec's minister for the status of women drew condemnation from opposition politicians earlier this year after she said the hijab (a headscarf worn by many Muslim women who feel it is part of their religion) is a symbol of female oppression.
In 2015 a Quebec judge contended that a defendant who was wearing a hijab was violating a Quebec law stipulating people must be “suitably dressed” in the courtroom.
“Decorum is important. Hats and sunglasses, for example, are not allowed. And I don’t see why scarves on the head would be either,” Marengo said at the time. “I will therefore not hear you if you are wearing a scarf on your head, just as I would not allow a person to appear before me wearing a hat or sunglasses on his or her head, or any other garment not suitable for a court proceeding.”
The judge’s comments triggered numerous complaints to the judicial council, which decided 28 of them were founded. It formed a committee to investigate Marengo’s conduct in June 2016.
Marengo asked Quebec Superior Court to force the judicial council to end its investigation and lost in February 2017.
In February 2018, the Court of Appeal also found against her, ruling that “the continuation of the inquiry by the committee, while a delicate exercise in the circumstances, is the only possible avenue for an enlightened justice.”
In October, the Court of Appeal ruled in a separate case that obliging El-Alloul to remove her Muslim head scarf was a violation of her fundamental rights.
Recently, an elected council women in  Montreal Lyne Shand had these choice words over Muslims.;
“In a Facebook post, which has since been taken down, she complains that the ophthalmologist assigned to her case was a veiled woman;
Had it not been an emergency, I would have refused to be treated by her,” the post reads in French. “I’m raging because it’s really the Islamization of our country. We have to accept everything: their reasonable accommodation, removing our crucifix (and I’m not a believer), etc., etc.”....
...“I’m not racist, I’m just a realist,” the comment continued.
“Have you noticed how each time you see a veiled woman, she’s pushing a carriage with a baby?”
Now the law doesn't even cover doctors or nurses, but the above is an example of what is to come. As I predicted in a previous post, the effect of the law will spill over into general attacks on any Muslims wearing a headscarf in public.
It will not be pretty.

As for the mean-spirited nature of the debate, a poll that shows that a majority of Quebecers object to a grandfather clause that would allow those already employed in the public service to continue wearing their headscarf.
And so a public service employee with perhaps ten years on the job as a clerk at the license bureau would have to choose to remove her headscarf or be fired over it.

That is what Quebecers want.

When the law is enacted we can expect the bloodlust to continue with new demands on restrictions sure to be made.
Right now the law doesn't apply to kindergartens, daycares and teachers. We can expect demands to be made in that regard.
Religious schools have long been the bane of secularists who object to students being subjected to the teachings of the Bible or Koran. They will be the next target.

The CAQ government cleverly kept its ace in the hole and surprised everybody with the proposal to remove the Crucifix in the National Assembly, something they promised never to do, thus preempting charges of double-standards.

But it opens the door to attacks on all societal religious symbols and the question is fair to ask.

Is banning Christmas next?

Of course, the argument will be made (correctly) that the Christmas holiday is part of Quebec's patrimony and has been celebrated since the birth of the nation.

But I would remind those who argue such, that Jews have been wearing kippot in public for over 250 years in Quebec and if that is not a patrimonal aquired right, I don't know what is.