"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-Pastor Martin Niemöller
Decades ago, when the thoroughly loathsome Dr. Camille Laurin proposed a law making French the 'official' language of Quebec, via the infamous Bill 101, the then separatist Premier René Levesque was uncomfortable with the basic notion of limiting the rights of certain Quebeckers.
Among sovereignists and nationalists, he was just about the only one that held that view, with the general consensus among French language militants was that the end justified the means.
Back then, civil libertarians were rightly shocked and many postulated that it was the thin edge of the wedge. After all, if the government could force you to speak a certain language, could it not force you to follow a certain religion?
This argument annoyed French militants to no end and was panned as utterly alarmist and unrealistic.
Well....never is a long time. In fact,.... never is now.
Bill 94 is a proposed Quebec law banning the wearing of a burqa or niqib while receiving or dispensing any public service in Quebec.
Many who oppose the veil, do so based on the so-called 'security issue' and claim that their position in no way reflects anti-Muslim sentiment. Others who oppose the veil, are not so circumspect and publicly oppose the veil based on its perceived anti-feminist symbolism.
On both accounts fair-minded citizens should vehemently oppose the law.
First off, let me say that like most Quebeckers, I have a particular dislike for the veil. In fact I find the whole outfit, top to bottom, veil included, a bit creepy, to say the least.
That being said, I also dislike curry and find heavy metal music particularly loathsome. But I don't think I'd ever consider calling for a ban of AC/DC concerts or the closure of Indian restaurants. The old adage of "To each, his own" still rings true with me and I hope it does with you, as well.
That being said, I also dislike curry and find heavy metal music particularly loathsome. But I don't think I'd ever consider calling for a ban of AC/DC concerts or the closure of Indian restaurants. The old adage of "To each, his own" still rings true with me and I hope it does with you, as well.
Those who argue that the veil is a security issue, do so in order justify their prejudice through a logical and politically acceptable argument, but it is really just an excuse. There are less than two dozen women wearing the veil in Quebec and none has demonstrated any particular danger to society. None have robbed any banks and none have kidnapped and eaten little children. Security is really a smokescreen for racism.
Two weeks ago, I witnessed a riot in downtown Montreal where individuals hoodlums wore scarves to hide their identities whilst rioting and looting stores on Ste. Catherine Street. Each year anarchists hold a parade where they create mayhem and destruction while hiding their identity by way of masks and scarves. Many have called for a ban on such face coverings, but as of today, there is no law being proposed or debated to ban face-covering during the riots. There is however Bill 94, a law banning the benign wearing of veils by Muslims.
.
So which is more dangerous, a punk, covering his face while smashing windows and looting, or a Muslim women wearing a veil, walking peacefully down the street pushing a baby stroller?.
Security issue? My eye!
As for the other major argument people use to call for a ban on the veil, the fact that they are offended by the anti-female message that the veil represents, all I can say is, too bad for you.
How on earth, is somebody's political or moral opinion in any way relevant to what someone else believes in or the clothes that they wear?
Are we really ready to tell people what they may or may not wear based on whether it goes against generally held opinions?
Are we really ready to tell people what they may or may not wear based on whether it goes against generally held opinions?
Personally I am offended by many things;
I dislike teen aged boys that wear their jeans so low that their underwear is displayed.
I dislike people who wear Che Guevara T-shirts or other anarchist crap.
I'm offended by women who wear lo-rise pants and flaunt their thongs.
I am offended by obese men who attend public swimming pools wearing Speedos.
I'm offended by nose rings and florescent hair.
I scoff at people who believe in UFOs
I think people who believe that there was no moon landing are idiots.
I'm sure that there are plenty of things that you don't like or things that you don't believe in. Should we ban them all?
I'm sure that there are plenty of things that you don't like or things that you don't believe in. Should we ban them all?
When I was a teen, most adults hated long hair on boys, tie-dyed T-shirts, the Beatles and bell-bottom jeans.
SO WHAT!!!!!!!!!!
To bad for you if someone else's personal display of their faith, their political beliefs or their fashion taste offends you.
Has the numbing affect of Bill 101, so eroded our concept of personal freedom that we are really ready to ban someone's clothing because it offends the political or moral belief of the majority?
Have we sunk so low?
It's hard to like the veil, but it shouldn't be hard to accept, not if you believe in freedom.
Nobody should be forced to wear a veil and nobody should be forced not to wear one.
People are free to believe in abortion and people are free to be against it.
People are free to believe in sovereignty or in Canada.
People are free to wear boxers or briefs.
People are free to tattoo a Nazi swastika on their butt.
People are free to believe in sovereignty or in Canada.
People are free to wear boxers or briefs.
People are free to tattoo a Nazi swastika on their butt.
People are free to believe that the veil is a symbol of oppression and people are free to believe it is a sign of piety.
Freedom is tenuous and fragile and it is always under attack by forces who want to enforce a particular agenda.
In Quebec there is a political force led by ultra nationalists and separatists who wish to impose French language supremacy coupled with a leftist, anti-religious agenda. That's okay, it's their right.
What's not okay is imposing it on us all.
What's not okay is imposing it on us all.
It's incumbent on us all to defend our own freedom, but more importantly to defend the freedom of those with whom we don't agree, otherwise we fail as citizens.
It's easy to be against the veil, it's a lot harder to defend it on principle. If we don't, it's just the beginning of more interdictions.
Already there are calls to ban other religious regalia in the public service, however minor.
I'm not a religious person and don't care much about crucifixes, hijabs, niqabs and Jewish Stars, but as Pastor Niemöller reminds us all, I really ought to give a damn.
It's easy to be against the veil, it's a lot harder to defend it on principle. If we don't, it's just the beginning of more interdictions.
Already there are calls to ban other religious regalia in the public service, however minor.
I'm not a religious person and don't care much about crucifixes, hijabs, niqabs and Jewish Stars, but as Pastor Niemöller reminds us all, I really ought to give a damn.