Thursday, April 1, 2010

"Naema's Law" to Open Floodgates of Intolerence

Bill 94, Quebec's proposed law banning the niqab and burka from government and para-public institutions, including schools and hospitals, will likely be referred to as  "NAEMA' S LAW," in honour of the young lady, Naema Ahmed, whose extraordinary demands provided the crucial impetus to the government to act on the issue of fundamentalist Islamism and its place in Quebec (and Canada).

While many commentators like Shahina Siddiqui in the Montreal Gazette and Clifford Orwin in the Globe and Mail pan the law based on their view that it is an attack on religious freedom, other liberals chime in that the law is unnecessary in light of the very few woman who actually wear the veil.


75% of Quebeckers are against the wearing of a hijab by students in a public school. (and by implication a kippah, turban or kirpan) No numbers were provided for the difference in opinion between Anglophone and Francophones for this question.

Paradoxically, 54% of those polled are in favour of keeping the crucifix hanging on the wall in classrooms in public schools! Again, no numbers were provided for the difference in opinion between groups, but if Francophones alone were considered, the number would very likely shoot up to well over 65% !

54% of Francophones believe that non-Christian immigrants pose a threat to Quebec culture with a contrasting number of 30% in the Anglo community holding the same view.

The results of the poll lay bare the reality that the debate is not really about secularism versus religion, but rather Christianity versus minority orthodox religions, particularly on the Francophone side.

The poll indicates that the majority of Francophones are not secularlists who wish to remove all religion from public life. 
It  indicates that the majority are those who wish to protect their Christian heritage by restricting other orthodox religions from manifesting themselves publicly.

That's a heckova difference!
That is what Naima's Law is going to lay bare.


  1. All of these issues SHOULD have been CAREFULLY CONSIDERED before significant numbers of people who adhere to these cultures were let into the country (I cannot overstate this). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But why are subsidies given to private religious schools anyways? The United States has NEVER allowed any public funding for any Catholic, Jewish or other denominational school.

  2. This is Quebec, where we'll subsidize anything as long as it isn't english. They don't like us speaking our language, but taxes don't speak any language. Where will they get the money for the everyting-to-everybody social programs when we've finally all left the province?

  3. "Where will they get the money for the everything-to-everybody social programs when we've finally all left the province?"

    I hate to say it but they will get the money in the form of increased transfer payments from the federal government. With each passing year Quebec becomes more dependent on these payments.
    So even after you have left Quebec you will continue to subsidize them with your federal taxes.

  4. “other liberals chime in that the law is unnecessary in light of the very few woman who actually wear the veil.”

    The law is unnecessary in a sense that the decision to wear or not to wear the veil should be made by, and only by, the woman herself. I personally do not like this Islamic custom, but I am also against any laws that would force these women to remove the veil against their will. After all, there is something called freedom of choice. I myself am an agnostic, but I fully respect people’s rights to religious belief, unlike the secular ideologues that abound in this province.

    What the gov’t is doing here is just another chapter in their social engineering project that aims to turn us all into perfect neo-Quebeckers. This project is unrealistic, unfeasible, and misguided. People like madame Harel, who railed against Italian cities, Arab cities and Greek cities, have no understanding of societal processes and the most basic human psychology – which is that people tend to associate with those that are similar to them, and that they will cling to the customs they were brought up in. Not to mention the hypocrisy that underlies all this - that the Quebecois should have the right to fight for their "distinctiveness" with respect to the rest of the country, but any "disitnctiveness" within Quebec should be abolished.

  5. Reply to Anglo basher:

    Maybe Canada would be better off WITHOUT Quebec and its endless subsidies. I fail to see why Alberta's wealth should go to Quebec. In fact I fail to see where Quebec is doing Alberta any good at all.

    Reply to Adski:

    The problem is how far does "religious freedom" go? What if my religion condoned child sexual molestation? The Burkha allows anybody the ability to walk around in public with their face concealed. It can (and has) even concealed a persons gender (in London a male terrorist used the burkha for over a year to evade authorities). There have been numerous cases of robbers using burkhas as disguises. And what if you are on trial for your life and someone testifying against you is wearing one. Shouldn't you have THE RIGHT to face your accuser? I would argue that this is a public safety issue. At that point "religious freedom" conflicts with the safety of society and other peoples rights.

  6. That's quite a leap there from wearing a veil to committing acts of sexual molestation.

    And we all know that security and safety are not at stake here, but rather our fear of anything that’s different. So let’s not bs each other.

    We bring these people in, 50000 a year, and then we freak out because they're different. Duh.

  7. To Anonymous at 3:49 PM:

    I am an former resident of Quebec who lives in Ottawa now. I think the separation of Quebec would be the best thing that could happen to the rest of Canada. No more transfer payments. No more official bilingualism. No more dragging down the economy of the entire country because of the unending political instability in Quebec. Thousands of government jobs would become available to people in the Ottawa area because it is highly unlikely that any citizens of the newly formed country of Quebec would be retained in federal positions. You might be interested in reading an a good book by Reed Scowen entitled "Time to Say Goodbye: Building a Better Canada Without Quebec."

  8. Reply to Adski:

    Do you really think it is such a leap? Maybe. Maybe not. I could mention the "prophet" Muhammad married a six year old girl and is said to have consumated the union when she was only nine. You also say that security is not an issue? Well all I can say to that is that I would never open my door to someone wearing a burkha. One other point I have frequently mentioned was the need to consider "differences" and their possible impacts BEFORE "we" bring in 50,000 of these people a year.

  9. Anglo basher:

    May I also suggest THE PATRIOT GAME by Peter Brimelow (and if you can find it the original book by the same name written in the 1890's) and also LAMENT FOR A NOTION by Scott Reid.

  10. "Do you really think it is such a leap?"

    To have a sensible debate, we first have to make sure it's grounded in realism and logic. If you insist on equating the Muslim religious requirement for wearing a veil with a hypothetical religious requirement to commit sexual molestation, then we are no longer on realistic ground, but in some wonder land.

    Sexual molestation is a criminal act and is pursued by the authorities. Wearing a veil by voluntary choice is no crime. It does not harm anyone. If done under coercion and under objections from the woman herself, it might fall under the clause of harassment or assault and we already have laws to deal with that.

    There is no need to further legislate this. An across-the-board ban on burkas is a step too far (Belgium just did that, Quebec follows closely behind). I’ve met Muslim women who voluntarily wore face covering and defended the practice when I challenged it. And as The Gazette article mentioned in the post indicates, the Muslim women who choose to follow this tradition are insulted by this latest government intrusion into their private lives. Because it is insulting.

    “I would never open my door to someone wearing a burkha.?”

    This is within your rights.

    “the need to consider "differences" and their possible impacts BEFORE "we" bring in 50,000 of these people a year.”

    Agreed. Talk to your MP.

  11. I still say that NOBODY should be allowed to routinely conceal their face. It CAN be a public safety issue. There HAVE been cases of "burkha bandits". A terrorist - male - eluded authorities in the U.K. for well over a year wearing one. Suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan HAVE used them. The potential for misuse is considerable. What would happen if a muslim woman gave evidence in court? Shouldn't she have to 'unveil'? Doesn't one have the right to face their accuser?