Charter of Values....the Wrong Debate

The debate over the Charter of Values may be but a ploy by the PQ to find some new and fertile land in the electoral landscape, but questions surrounding the direction our society is going in relation to Muslim immigration, is in fact legitimate and one that our society should and must face, sooner rather than later.

Let's be honest, the Charter of Values is all about  forcing Muslims to integrate, the Jews and the Sikhs are irrelevant.

Looking at the polls, opinion seems to be equally split on the Charter of Values, with sound minded people supporting one side of the issue or the other, both able, it seems to me,  to make a good case. 
There is also, I believe, a considerable amount of people who are wrestling with the issue (I for one), those who believe in personal freedom but are afraid that Quebec may end up like France, Germany or Scandinavia, where Muslim immigration has been problematic (to say the least) because too many immigrants are determined to bring the old ways of home to their new country, instead of adapting to western culture.

It is these 'old ways' that many object to, not exactly the religious part, but mostly the social, where women are believed to be chattel to be dominated by the men in their lives.

For those who are concerned about this problem, the veil is perceived as the symbol of female oppression, the thin end of the wedge and so they believe that banning the veil sends a powerful message that Quebecers will no tolerate their society going the way of the aforementioned countries, which are, in varying degrees, gripped in social upheaval based on Muslim versus western values.

I listen and read all the different positions and somehow feel like Teyve in the Fiddler on the Roof, who when asked to referee an argument finds himself agreeing to both opposing positions.

Any thinking person should understand that the issue is difficult, a question of drawing the line between personal freedom balanced by the greater public interest. Where that line is properly placed is a matter of honest debate.

And so I must reject those editorialists who are shocked that such a debate is taking place, I bet those in Europe would wish to turn back the clock and embark on exactly the same process we are undergoing.

What direction would the Europeans have chosen for their countries, if they knew then, what they know now?

 I condemn all those on both sides of the debate with hardline positions, who see those with opposite views  as stupid, naive, traitorous or worse still, racist.

Here is a typical editorial view from the ROC;

"Setting Quebecers against minorities and English Canada is a strategy Marois hopes will resonate with supporters and clear a path to majority government in the next election. It is cynical but typical. If this is the fight the PQ has chosen, Canadians, including many in Quebec, should not shirk from it. From banning hijabs and turbans from soccer fields to blaming money and ethnic votes for the 1995 referendum defeat, trampling on minority rights has become a Quebec pastime. If ever there was a time to draw a line under official discrimination, this is it. The Quebec charter is an affront to everything we hold dear in Canada." Ottawa Citizen

While there is nary an article in English Canada supporting the Charter of Values, paradoxically, the numbers of Canadians who believe that religious limitations are reasonable is remarkably similar to sentiments in Quebec..

Here, the National Post was surprised by reader responses;

"Quebec’s proposed secularist Charter of Values has not proven to be popular with pundits — but a surprising number of National Post readers like it. That became evident as readers answered this week’s Letters-page question: “Do you support Quebec’s proposed ban on religious symbols in the workplace?”
A full page of responses will fill Monday’s Letters page, with the notes falling into three main groups. The largest is from readers who feel religion has no place in a public workspace. Here are a few examples:
“God or Allah or Jehovah or Vishnu are supreme, all-knowing deities,” wrote J. Bakker. “They know what is in your heart and soul. It is a true faith that will get you to the wonderful afterlife, not what you wear. Religious symbols should be worn in the home or in a place of worship only.”
“Premier Pauline Marois at least has the intestinal fortitude to express her feelings publicly,” added Don Forbes. “I believe the majority of Canadians have similar feelings, but are reluctant to say so. The rest of Canada should extend the ban to all places outside of the home and places of worship, especially in schools.” Link{PW}

There are plenty of these hard-line bashers, on both side of the debate, those who spew venomous insults in print and on the air. 
They are singularly obtuse, spouting their opinion as if it is holy gospel (excuse the reference) and that those opposed are to be humiliated and shamed.

On the opposite side, here is a nasty screed from the singularly vapid, vacuous, and vicious Richard Martineau of Le Journal de Montreal, who writes nugatory articles on a high school level, which do however unfortunately appeal to his target audience of low-brows.

I don't usually write to humiliate, but since Martineau seeks to humiliate individuals who have an opinion other than his, someone should stand up to a simpleminded schoolyard bully.

The Missionary Position
The saddest of all, are the feminists - like Francine Pelletier, who just the other day, assailed  'secular extremism' on Radio-Canada, the official anti-charter organ. 

Francine Pelletier, damn it! 
One of the founders of La vie en rose! (feminist magazine-editor)

Defending the right to wear the veil! 
It's like Françoise David becoming the president of the Kim Kardashian Fan Club or a judge in a Mini Miss contest.

It reminds me of the 65,000 black soldiers who fought in the Confederate Army during the Civil War ...Uh ... Didn't they see that they were fighting on the wrong side?

RED SUBURBS
A few years ago , I went to La Courneuve, to interview a young Arab actress. La Courneuve is a steamy suburb of Paris which exploded in 2005. When I arrived, thugs put to torch a brand new cultural center. 
Local youth had not even had time to enjoy it - it was destroyed before it even opened its doors. In short, not a beautiful part of the country.
The young actress lived in a very dilapidated public housing project, inhabited by a majority of Muslim immigrants. She wasn't quite 18, but already had a woman's body, curves, a luscious mouth,  feline hair ...
THE MADONNA AND THE WHORE
The young woman told me that when she left her home, she had to "show decency" and dress 'discreetly'  because she was being harassed by boys. In her neighborhood, there were two kinds of girls. Those who covered up (and who were worthy of respect) and the others, easy girls, whores that guys would grope because they did not obey the principles of the Qur'an and didn't respect themselves.

That's the veil. 
It serves to distinguish the good girls from whores and that's what Françoise David and Francine Pelletier defend? I'm must be hallucinating .
The pioneers of feminism must be turning in their graves. It shows how the Trudeau philosophy has contaminated the elite. Muslims have their Koran, we have the Charter of Rights. Each their own prayer book.

KNOW YOUR PLACE 
The girl had fully bowed to the will of the young Muslims who were the law in neighbourhood. 
She wore baggy clothes to hide her sensuality. She walked the neighborhood, head down, without make-up. 
They told her what her place was and she had accepted, obediently while saying that it was her choice and that nothing had been imposed

Shame on those Western feminists who defend the veil. 
You may say that women have the right to do what they want with their bodies - prostitution, injecting botox in the lips, or sporting huge breast implants. 

But name me a country where women who refuse to dress up like a babe risks whipping, imprisonment and death. 
There is none.
In defending the veil, you turn your back to women throughout the Muslim world, who are  fighting for their freedom .

Shame on you . LINK{fr}{PW}

So according to Mr. Martineau, it is the veil that is the problem and like Samson's hair, it too is magical, in this case, a divine source of fundamentalism.

If we'd just ban the veil, observant Muslim women would instantly become emancipated, embrace poutine and maple syrup and hopefully (cross your fingers) become committed sovereigntists.
Hmm...
It's like believing that if your punk daughter would remove her piercings and change her hairstyle from spiked florescent pink to something more conventional, all would be well... Ah!..If only life was that simple. 

Mr Martineau starts his piece by telling us that Muslim women who wear the veil are as misguided as the 65,000 Black soldiers who fought for the South in the American civil war.
It would be an interesting analogy, unfortunately it is utter rubbish, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Blacks, in any number fought on the Secessionist side. None...zip...nada!

It's hard to take seriously an article where a feature writer in Quebec's largest newspaper can tell us a blatant untruth, a falsehood worthy of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

How utterly discourteous and arrogant can one writer be to repeat an internet myth without undertaking the most rudimentary of fact-checking!
In the comments under the story Martineau is challenged on this falsehood, but another reader provides a link that 'proves' that it is indeed a fact that thousands of Blacks did indeed fight for the South.

I checked out the link, which leads to the reader section of the Huffington Post in France, which prominently displays a disclaimer that the article is unverified by editors.  In it, the author also claims that the American Civil War wasn't even fought over the issue of slavery and quotes the discredited writer, who propagated the myth.  Hmmm...

"The Washington Post reported last week that a textbook used by fourth-graders in Virginia had a startling inaccuracy about the Civil War. Our Virginia: Past and Present by Joy Masoff tells students that thousands of African-American soldiers fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War and that two battalions of African-American soldiers served under Confederate General Stonewall Jackson. Masoff, who told The Washington Post that she is a "fairly respected writer," has written previous books, including history texts aimed at children on the colonial period and the American Revolution.
Masoff is not a historian, however. We could debate the merits of a school system using a textbook written by a non-professional, but more interesting is how Masoff got into trouble in the first place: she relied on the Internet, home to all sorts of misinformation and refuge for all sorts of conspiracy theories, junk science, and racist scholarship. It was the website of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a Confederacy "heritage" organization, where Masoff gleaned her information." Read more

The Washington Post had an interesting article debunking the myth of Blacks fighting for the South.

I hope Mr. Martineau reads the above stories and makes a retraction, but of course it will never happen because to admit the moronic mistake would be just too embarrassing.
I would however suggest in the future he use more trustworthy sources, otherwise he may as well quote from the Onion,  or the  Le Journal de Mourréal

At any rate, the naive and infantile notion that banning the veil will somehow change the faith of those so inclined to wear it, is nothing but deflection.

The greater issue is whether Quebec can dodge a bullet that no western country in Europe has managed to do, that is to transform ultra-observant Muslims into models of integration, instead of a sinister fifth column.

An apology to Canadian Muslims who have done their darndest to assimilate, veiled or not. The problem lies with the minority who wish to live apart.
I honestly don't know what proportion of Muslims in Canada are unwilling to accept our society for what it is and the truth is that nobody else seems to know either.
It's too bad, because it is fundamental to the debate,
Perhaps the whole issue may just be a Tempest in a Teapot, because the PQ government itself has absolutely no idea about how many Islamic fundamentalists there are in Quebec, nor do they know how many government employees wear the veil.
By the way,  outside the medical profession, I think that you could count the number of government employees who wear a kippah or turban to work, on your fingers and toes....er...Maybe just your fingers...and maybe on just one hand.

But there is a larger issue, we don't have to be prescient to see where the self-exclusion of a minority of Muslims may lead, the European example is ominous.

That is the real debate, one that charter supporters refuse to embrace, because simple answers to complex questions is what the readers of Richard Martineau really want.