355

I’m with the ‘intolerant’ Quebecers

MARK STEYN: The niqab deserves no more respect than a Vader mask


 
I’m with the ‘intolerant’ Quebecers

Photograph by Brian Howell

The other day, a reader wrote to say that, while en vacances au Québec, he had espied me in a restaurant. With a couple of obvious francophones. And, from the snatches of conversation he caught, I appeared to be speaking French. “Appeared” is right, if you’ve ever heard my French. Nevertheless: “You’re a fraud, Steyn!” he thundered. The cut of his jib was that I was merely pretending to be a pro-Yank right-wing bastard while in reality living la vie en rose lounging on chaises longues snorting poutine with louche Frenchie socialists all day long.

I haven’t felt such a hypocrite since I was caught singing The Man That Got Away in a San Francisco bathhouse two days after my column opposing gay marriage. But yes, you’re right. I cannot tell a lie. I have a soft spot for Quebec. Not because of its risible separatist movement, for which the only rational explanation is that it was never anything but one almighty bluff for shakedown purposes. Yet, putting that aside, I’m not unsympathetic to the province’s broader cultural disposition. I regard neither Trudeaupian Canada nor Quietly Revolutionary Quebec as good long-term bets, or even medium-term bets. But, if I had to pick, I’d give marginally better odds to the latter. And the reasons why can be found in the coverage of Ms. Naema Ahmed and her “illegal” niqab, the head-to-toe Islamic covering that only has eyes for you.

The facts—or, at any rate, fact—of the case is well-known: a niqab-garbed immigrant from Egypt has been twice expelled from her French-language classes at the Saint-Laurent CEGEP and the Centre d’appui aux communautés immigrantes by order of the Quebec government. That much is agreed. Thereafter, the English and French press diverge significantly. The ROC reacted reflexively, deploring this assault on Canada’s cherished “values” of “multiculturalism.” In the Calgary Herald, Naomi Lakritz compared Quebec’s government to the Taliban. So did the Globe and Mail, in an editorial titled “Intolerant Intrusion.” In La Presse, Patrick Lagacé responded with a column called “The Globe, Reporting From Mars!”

The headline was in English, and on the whole M. Lagacé’s English is better than the Globe’s French. He began by noting their unbelievably stupid editorial on O Canada, in which they endeavoured to balance their charge of sexism in the English lyrics (“in all thy sons command”) by uncovering sexism in the French—“terre de nos aïeux” or “land of our forefathers.” Where, fretted the Globe for a couple hundred words, are the foremothers? This is what happens when your claims to be Canada’s national newspaper rest on the translation services of Babel Fish. As M. Lagacé pointed out, “aïeux, en français, englobe hommes et femmes.” Englobe maybe, but not in Globe.

It’s not surprising, then, the anglo media wasn’t quite up to speed on “les nuances et les détails” of La Presse’s and the other French coverage. Ignored in the rush to raise the rainbow banner of multiculturalism were, for example, the teacher’s insistence that she needed to see the pupil’s mouth move to teach her a new language; Mme Ahmed’s demand that male pupils remove themselves from her line of sight; her refusal to participate in discussions round a table; the school administration’s attempt to accommodate these various difficulties; and, since Mme Ahmed has now gone to the Quebec “Human Rights” Commission, the right of the other students not to have their classes disrupted and their own attempts to learn French set back by one pupil’s intransigence.

In return, the Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente redeemed her paper with a characteristically sharp column on the new “two solitudes”—French and English Canada’s different view of Islam, which she argued mirrored broader Franco-Britannic approaches. She’s right. France thought nothing of banning the veil in its educational establishments, whereas in Britain a teenage girl who took her school to court for the right to wear the full-body “jilbab” had as her lawyer none other than Cherie Booth, wife of then-prime minister Tony Blair.

On this one, I’m with the “intolerant” Quebecers. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a Common Law man. I like to be treated as an individual enjoying equality under the law, no more, no less. But these days that’s not on the menu in either English or French Canada. Instead, we have competing philosophies of group rights. In the ROC, the group rights that matter are those of leftist social engineers’ preferred minorities—gays, natives, Muslims, pre-op transsexuals. Quebec also prioritizes group rights, but in this case the group that matters is the majority—la collectivité. As I said, I rejoice in English law’s ancient disdain for the very concept of group rights. But, if I’m forced to choose between one view of group rights or the other, Quebec’s seems less psychologically unhealthy.

It’s the unthinkingness of the Anglo reaction that’s embarrassing: there’s a niqab-clad woman in the story? Oh, she must be the good guy. That’s Chapter One of Multiculti For Dummies, right? In the Quebec coverage, you at least get the sense they’re thinking through the questions. I dislike Islamic body bags and regard them as a form of degradation and an act of self-segregation. I say “Islamic,” but in fact as a mandatory expression of piousness they barely date back to the disco era. The niqab should command no more cultural respect than a guy walking into class in Darth Vader’s getup and demanding the women be removed from his line of vision. Except in the ROC they’d call in the Mounties over that. We would never for a moment view with equanimity large numbers of masked men on our streets. But how quickly we’ve got used to walking around, say, Tower Hamlets in East London and seeing more fully covered women than you do in Amman. Mme Ahmed’s views may be sincerely held, but, if so, they mean she can never be a functioning member of a pluralist Western society in any meaningful sense of the term. Given that the Quebec government is paying for her francization lessons, it is not unreasonable for them to reach that conclusion.

But that’s Quebec. Canada’s state ideology says, if you can get here, you’re as Canadian as Sir John A. Macdonald. Quebec’s says this is who we are; deal with it. In the ROC, “Canadian values” are that we have no values: we value your values, whatever they happen to be.

Not so, you protest. Why, even the Globe and Mail will still draw a line or two. Their editorial denouncing Quebec’s intolerance began:“There obviously need to be some limits on the accommodation of religious and cultural minorities. Female genital mutilation is one example. Child marriage is another.”

My, that’s big of you. But in practice even this robust line is written endlessly flexible. As the Toronto Sun recently reported:

“Federal immigration officials say there’s little they can do to stop ‘child brides’ from being sponsored into Canada by much older husbands…Muslim men, who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents, return to their homeland to wed a ‘child bride’ in an arranged marriage in which a dowry is given to the girl’s parents. Officials said some of the brides can be 14 years old or younger.”

So, if it’s women’s rights vs. the joys of multiculturalism, bet on the latter. What next? Gay rights? Norway’s Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion has just given its prestigious 2009 Role Model of the Year award to Mahdi Hassan, a man who wants a ban on homosexuality, and is open to capital punishment as a means of enforcing it. No Nordic blond would make Role Model of the Year with such pronouncements, but it’s amazing how cute they sound coming from your multiculti types.

How many people have to think like Mr. Hassan for it to tell us something about where Norway’s headed? How many women in the CEGEP class have to act like Mme Ahmed for it to put a profound question mark over the future of your society? In the ROC, even to ask the question is illegitimate, not to say “racist” and “Islamophobic.” Quebec is disinclined to such masochism, regarding itself very much as the S in the Canadian S&M dungeon.

Margaret Wente thinks many English Canadians agree more with the Quebec government’s approach than with the elite opinion expressed by the Globe et al. Demonstrating their bizarre insulation from their own market, the Montreal Gazette sneered that the land of the “tongue troopers” didn’t also need a government dress code. But we’re not really talking about clothes, are we? “If you want to integrate into Quebec society, here are our values,” said the Immigration Minister, Yolande James. “We want to see your face.”

One can have legitimate disagreements about what follows therefrom, but I agree with that statement. Vive le Québec niqab-libre!


 

I’m with the ‘intolerant’ Quebecers

  1. "I'm with the ‘intolerant' Quebecers"

    Didn't see that coming.

    • that is the thing with Steyn's writing. you always have to be on your toes. it is so unpredictable Sean!

    • Actually guys, if you look at the latest poll results on this subject, you will see that Steyn`s viewpoint is overwhelming similar to the majority of Canadians. So even if you dislike Steyn it`s OK to acknowledge him when he is correct, or if that is too difficult you could ignore him.

      • It should be noted that being popular does not make something is correct. Hell, slavery was quite popular once…

        • Agreed, except in this case the people are correct.

    • Steyn's telling me one thing, and the National Post is telling me another. I get paid to sit here and regurgitate what I read in both places. What the eff am I supposed to do now?

  2. A few points:

    (1) If she was disrupting the class by making unreasonable demands, or if the mask interfered with the teacher's work in some appreciable way, then fair enough: demand that she conform or leave. However, if the teacher was just imposing some kind of bureaucratic "my way or the highway" approach in which nonconformity is viewed as an affront then I'm with Ahmed.

    (2) The fact that Ahmed is involving the Quebec HRC is a bad sign. That alone makes me suspect she's a prima donna.

    (3) "The niqab should command no more cultural respect than a guy walking into class in Darth Vader's getup and demanding the women be removed from his line of vision."
    The problem here would be the demands, not the costume. If a guy wants to dress like Darth Vader that's his business unless it interferes with someone else's rights.

    (4) "Except in the ROC they'd call in the Mounties over that. We would never for a moment view with equanimity large numbers of masked men on our streets."
    Who cares what people would view with equanimity? Since when do we determine rights that way? My freedom to wear a costume shouldn't depend on someone else's feelings any more than my freedom to say what I think shouldn't depend on someone else's feelings. There's a real inconsistency here in Steyn's thinking.

    One's rights extend to the point where someone else's rights begin. Ahmed's garb may be controversial or of recent origin or offensive to some or any number of things, but unless it (or her demands) interfere(s) with someone else's activity leave her alone.

    • Oh, take a camel, Gaunilon. She *was* disrupting the class by refusing to unveil because of the presence of male students. This is only one manifestation of a primitive group of people that refuse to practice Western values.

      • Ah, yes! Since she is a non-Christian and not of European descent, she must be a “primitive,” and Western culture is superior to all others. It must be wonderful to dismiss people because their beliefs are different. While I disagree with many tenets of the Islamic faith, I am not so Euro-centric to discard them out of hand. While there may be 2 billion Christians in the world, there are 4+ billion who are not. To dismiss them out of hand is sheer arrogance on your behalf.
        While I see Ms. Ahmed’s demands as going too far, and the result, while harsh, is reasonable, that does not justify the complete ban. Just as it is a choice to wear the niqab, so too should it be a choice to cast it off. Through education and the experiences of life in Canada we can effect a change.

        • "Western culture is superior to all others."

          Yes, it is. But don't hake my word for it. Just look at how many Westerners are trying to emigrate to Saudi Arabia compared to the other way around.

          • Norbert, I read your comment after I posted. Interesting we were on the same page!

        • I suppose you believe the Islamic way of life is (a) superior and ought to be accomodated in the West; or (b) it is equal to the Western ways. Whichever you believe, you are wrong. I'll tell you one thing, no one is flocking to the rich theocratic country of Saudi Arabia; people immigrate to the West. This may be because the Western way of life is desirable to others.

          Ahmed was demanding to be treated as a superior being excepted from everyday rules and proffered special ones. She was seeking taxpayer-sponsored education that she didn't wish to embrace, so your line about education effecting change, although correct, is the exact problem in this case.

        • Very well put

      • Why was she asked to unveil?

        • I tried to explain this to you in the other niqab thread, but you said my supposition was a "theory" because it wasn't contained within the article. Interviews with the teacher confirm what I said about needing to see the person's mouth to improve elocution. I don't have a link, but you're welcome to search for it.

          • Interviews with the teacher confirm what I said about needing to see the person's mouth to improve elocution.

            OK, that is very relevant information; thanks for tracking it down. That does make it much harder to understand the student's objections.

            …you said my supposition was a "theory"…

            Perhaps I misread your post In the other thread: over there I thought that you were presenting the elocution explanation as a supposition on your part, not a known fact. My apologies.

          • That's okay. My post may have come across as anecdotal; I should have mentioned the interview with the teacher.

            So essentially we have the teacher not being able to do her job and a person demanding special treatment at the expense of her peers. If I were in that class I would be disgusted that any accomodations were made at all. I just get frustrated that equality, that thing where everyone is accountable for their actions regardless of ethnicity or religious proclivities, was missed when the pendulum swing from right to left.

          • It's okay. I may have presented it as anecdotal, so my apologies.

            My posts are being deleted and I've just started posting. Freedom of speech, you say?

          • And if the peson's elocution cannot be improved visually they must be thrown out of class. Way to go, to educate people!

      • "primitive group" – sounds pretty ethnocentric to me. I can tell what you might think about Aboriginal or other cultural practices or regalia.

    • "One's rights extend to the point where someone else's rights begin. Ahmed's garb may be controversial or of recent origin or offensive to some or any number of things, but unless it (or her demands) interfere(s) with someone else's activity leave her alone. "

      A KKK outfit would be okay under those rules.

      • Cam, a KKK outfit is not acceptable because it offends all people that disagree with racial discrimination (and that is most people). Do you agree with that?

        Well then, a niqab is not acceptable because it offends all men that don't like to be labeled as potential rapists (and that is most men). How about that?

        • I'm not sure what you're getting at.

          Going by Gaunilon's definition of what should and shouldn't be worn, the KKK outfit should be acceptable. It doesn't interfere with someone else's activity. I'm trying to take that to it's logical conclusion.

          Can't tell whether you are agreeing with me or Gaunilon.

          • A Muslim woman must cover her body because it will incite sexual desire within a man, which cannot be controlled. Many Muslim women are raised to believe they are the persons to incite rape and men are not accountable in that regard. This is the origin (you may have heard) of the laws that dictate that women are prosecuted and killed when raped.

          • In which case one fights the mistaken idea, not demand that people conform to an arbitrary dress code.

          • What is the dress code that is being demanded people conform to?

          • From Alexander, above, "Well then, a niqab is not acceptable because it offends all men that don't like to be labeled as potential rapists "

            There seems to be a sense that it would be ok to ban women from wearing the niqab, at least for medical care, education, and government services (from the Need to Know article about how 3/4 of Canadians agree with this). That would be demanding that people conform to an arbitrary (i.e. niqabless) dress code.

          • No, it's not. To once again refer to the Criminal Code statute about disguise, it is a criminal offence to mask yourself while committing a crime. It is not a criminal offence to wear a balaclava or ski mask in any other circumstance. We are not as a society banned from wearing masks at Halloween, on a ski hill, or on the streets. We are banned from wearing one during the commission of an offence.

            Secondly, you have misread the bill. The bill states women who wear the niqab will be required to REMOVE it upon request for identifcation. They are not being banned from wearing the niqab anywhere and everywhere they like — it is only when a person must be identified that they must comply with a request from a public servant to reveal themselves. Perfectly sensible.

          • Except that, right now, if I wear a niqab and ask to get a health card but not to unveil in front of a man, there is a procedure to follow that will accomodate me – I have to wait until a female is free, go behind a screen, etc. No harm no foul. The bill proposes to legislate away a sensible solution that doesn't really get in anyone's way. A reasonable accomodation, in other words. The purported harm is not to those in line, or those working the counter, but to Quebec society who is forced to accept that I get to choose to wear the niqab in the face (no pun intended) of their collective disapproval.

          • I also meant to reply to your first comment. Why, in your opinion, are the issues mutually exclusive? It seems to me that the misogyny works both ways: a woman is sexually desirable; a man is so drawn to a woman's sexuality that she must cover herself because he cannot control his desire. It is equal opportunity sexism. In my opinion, one does not outweigh the other in importance, nor can they be addressed separately. I don't know if you're taking the other side because you believe I'm pro-feminist and men don't matter, but I actually believe it's an incredibly offensive, damaging concept that affects both sexes equally.

          • What non-sense. Where did u learn that from, apparently you could be a scholar in wild imagination, but certainly not where Islam is concerned. There are no laws to kill women if they are raped in Islam. In India in the rural and poor areas, there is a tradition that parents burn their daughters if they for some reason they are not/cannot be wed, but that's tribal tradition among poor hindus. I know of nothing similar in any religion. You need to get your sources and information correct (you may have heard)

        • A niqab…. also offends women. Halloween is on October 31st in this country.

    • In Newfoundland, we have a tradition of mummering (or jannying), originating in Britain, which involves dressing up in disguise at Christmas and going door to door. If invited in, the hosts then try to guess who is wearing the disguise. It is dying out because some took advantage of the disguises to get up to some less than savoury activities. Mummers now risk charges under the Criminal code for wearing a disguise. The Niqab's purpose is much the same: to render the person anonymous and unrecognizable. Why is it treated differently under the law? Alternately, if mummers declare themselves an offshoot of Christianity, would their right to wear the disguises then be protected under law?

      • In Canada, it depends. If you are a member of the Human Rights Commission's victim class, then yes. Christians don't fit the quota. Also, wearing a disguise with intent is illegal under the Criminal Code of Canada. There's a notorious bank robber in Toronto who dons the burka very successfully during the commission of his offences. Worldwide, suicide bombers can waltz right into public buildings and detonate without security batting an eyelash. I wonder at what point we start addressing these issues in policy. I'd hate to see buildings crumbling in the downtown core, but it will probably get to that point.

      • Unless you're mummering at the Dept. of Motor vehicles in Mount Pearl, this anecdote is hardly relevant.

    • As usual the ROC has half-assed information about this situation. The teacher was an adept of extream accomadation (better than the British) and had nothing to do with the decision to oust this slighlty neurotic Egyptian from the class. It was the woman's consistant "my way or the highway" attitude (non compromising) that got her kicked out by the school's administration. And what real difference is there between the woman's garb and that of our friend Darth ?
      Marc from Montreal

      • So why not fail the student?

        But I can accept that, if your facts are true (I don't think they are, but whatever), her expulsion from the first class by the teacher or upon the teacher's request (e.g., because the other students can't learn) might be justified.

        What is not justified, based on your facts, is her explusion from the second institution by the same bureaucrat (not instructor) before the class got rolling. That's a policy choice, not a response to classroom needs.

        And why does one need a law to address this issue? Again, policy choice, nothing really to do with a purported prima donna student.

      • Marc-

        voici on hosti **newsflash** pour vous autres:

        Le "Globe and Mail" n'est pas le "Rest of Canada"

    • "One's rights extend to the point where someone else's rights begin. Ahmed's garb may be controversial or of recent origin or offensive to some or any number of things, but unless it (or her demands) interfere(s) with someone else's activity leave her alone. "

      And indeed she will be left alone if she keeps insisting on her choice to wear the niqab at all times everywhere except in her own home.

      The wearing of a niqab is about rights, but rights come with responsibility: If she accepts the responsibility, when taking up the right to wear a niqab, she must take the responsibility likewise which is that social interaction with others will not happen, that as such she will never become part of the real world because being in the real world IS by being interactive with others. If she insists on wearing a niqab she insists on NOT being in the real world. Generally speaking, collectively we do not think this to be a right – creating another reality – and therefore the right cannot really be given in the first place.

      • When did not wanting to interact with people become not a right? How many basement dwelling nerds does this new legislation encompass?!?

        • Then Ahmed should become a basement dwelling nerd.

    • Gaunilon is still standing . I always see Steyn to be some kind of right wing wingnut but on this one , I agree. It is a question of respecting equqality of the sexes. I am fed with with the anti feminine bias of Catholicism and Islamism. ENOUGH !!!

  3. I read this story in the context of the recent cancellation of Ann Coulter's speech at the Univerrsity of Ottawa. Together they say something about where Canada is headed. I'm not sure what it is exactly but it feels kind of creepy.

  4. It's not clear just who cancelled that speech – it may well have been Couter's own people, and for reasons other than safety.

    • Sean – what reasons other that safety are you suggesting?

      Forgot it was her mother’s birthday?
      Lost the address of speaking engagement?
      Dog ate her speech?

      Clearly you have some idea but you seem to have forgotten to include what the reason might be or the evidence that prompted your assertion.

        • I hate to get sucked into this but here goes. The last thing that Ms. Coulter needs is publicity. You seem to imply that her (immediate and quite proper) release of the letter from the Provost was part of some grand Machiavellian strategy to make herself a martyr and give her a plausible reason for cancelling her speech. That only works however if she had had access to a time machine and could have foreseen that M. Houle would sent his ridiculous missive. Remind me again – Isn't Francois Houle, as University Provost, a high official at the institution that extended her the original invitation? Isn't he a "public figure" just like Ms. Coulter? And as such aren't his remarks, particularly remarks blatantly intended to "chill" Ms. Coulters speech, proper subjects of public debate? It would be helpful if Canadian (and American) "progressives" would just come right out and say "We Want the Censorship of All Views We Don't Agree With!" It would save a lot of time!

          • Anne Coulter is a player who has become very rich and very slick at what she does. That letter was like a gift of manna from the gods. She didn't instigate anything, but when it fell into her lap she did what she always does – she used it to her advantage. She is actually very clever, in a predatory way, she gloats about how clever she is and how dumb her "opponents" are. And she always seems to gain the upper hand in the sophist slug-fests she revels in. Usually by shouting down her opponents, or insulting them and everyone who thinks like them. And the FOX audience goes wild!! You have to admit that it's pretty cheeky to use something that she loathes and associates with the "Loony Left", like the human rights commission , to stick it to her detractors. Whether she follows through is anybodies guess, because it's all about filling the seats. Look at the response in Calgary after the fact, she raked in big piles of dough for that gig. And to her that's what really counts, not what we think of her.

          • Actually, the university didn't invite her. Some group Ezra Levant has contact with did. If forget their name. Ottawa U just let them use a room.

            The most plausible explanation from the news reports and pictures I have seen is that 1500+ people showed up to attend and the venue could only hold 400, and the organizers were not prepared to handle that. Some protesters showed up, but I didn't see any picture that had more than about two or three dozen.

    • Well the speech "began" to be cancelled when the University Provost sent Ms. Coulter that oleaginous "warning letter" stating that her (as yet) undelivered remarks might very well violate Canadian law. As a result, anti-Coulter protestors could be forgiven for believing that they had the de facto backing of the U of O administration in shutting down the speech. We can certainly be sure that a hard-left pundit appearing on the same campus would have received all of the protection possible from "right wing bullies" along with smarmy and sanctimonious self-congratulation of Canada's historic spirit of "open inquiry." r

      • Remind me again who made the letter public?

        • Ooh. We mustn't make public the stupidity of anyone on the government payroll.

          Isn't that in the constitution somewhere?

          • You can completely make public the stupidity of anyone on the government payroll (though the U of O isn't really a government organization but I will let that slide). What you shouldn't be able to do (as chambers is doing) is blame the originator of that stupidity for what happened as a result of making it public if the originator didn't make it public. In this situation you can't say the Provost is responsible for making the protesters believe that they had university backing, because the Provost isn't the one that made it public thereby giving access of that letter to the protestors. Though the letter was in poor taste no doubt, anything that resulted from the letter being accessed by the public is the fault of Coulter's camp because they are the ones that choose to give the public that access.

  5. Usually have nothing nice to say about Que but way to go mes habitant! The day we stop giving into the most intolerant, backward religion of our times is the day I have hope for this left wing mush of a country.

    • You said what I thought – thanks for that!

    • Hey KinBurnSen ,

      China: 1 338 613 000 and united
      USA: 310 000 000 and united
      Canada: 31 M and torn apart

      Canada needs hope.

  6. I'm an Islamaphobe.

    I think they are quietly trying to change Canadian laws and culture to a Sharia law that they seem to be accomplishing in other countries, with intimidation, bombs and violence.

    Can I be helped?
    Should I move back to Quebec?
    Can the HRC help me see the light?
    Perhaps if I spend more time with Liberals…..

    Oh it is all so worrying, my lack of political correctness.

    Why do I feel threatened when I see MY culture – WASP guy – under attack.

    Perhaps Francois A–. Houle can write me a letter…… from the U of Zero Ministry of re-Education…..

    Please help me.

    • LOL! Well done, Sir!

    • Brilliant.

    • Very funny indeed, such a sense of humor, such a…… oh spare me the mediocrity. Islamophobe, xenophobe, claustrophobe these are all social illnesses, they truly need treatment. But as they say 'laughter is the best medicine'. I don't hear u laughing

  7. To Gaunilon. If you had read french papers, you'd have learned that for 6 months, the women stayed in the classroom with her niqab. You would have learned that for 6 months, her demands were accomodated. However, each time an agreement was reached with her (like doing her speaches with her back turned to the male students,etc), she backed on the agreement a pushed for further accomodations. __But of course you only read anglo papers where quebeckers are portayed as racists when an immigrant refuses to abide by canadian social standards.

  8. My ignorance on the subject is not in dispute…that's why there are so many "if" clauses in my post.
    The point is that even given certain "ifs" there are problems with Steyn's reasoning.

    • The context YMQ provided was exactly what I was hoping for from Steyn. I don't quite know what all YMQ's snottiness is about, but I gather it's what you get for not reading french papers.

      • That snottiness you perceive stems from the fact that whatever the story is, most pundits will blame quebeckers regardless of what happened. Glad to see pieces now emerging where the whole story is told but look at the first Globe editorial or the Calgary Herald's one; it was again "racist quebeckers are intolerant to poor immigrant".
        Remember Oka crisis? A policement was shot dead by warriors thus quebeckers were racists. Ipperwash? The OPP killed a native but I dont remember many editorials saying the good people of Ontario were racists because of that…

        That's the usual treatment we get from anglo papers.

        • Oh don't worry. The Left biased English newspapers all smeared the Premier of Ontario Mike Harris as a racist on the basis of Ipperwash (I wouldn't be surprised if Quebec papers did the same) and the present premier McWhimpy to avoid the same fate is now letting Natives run roughshod over non-Native rights whenever and whenever they feel like it, whether it be Caledonia or closing the Trans Canada highway.

        • Don't worry YMQ Alberta gets the same lousy treatment from anglo papers. If we Albertans did send so much money to Quebec I'd be on your side more often.

        • I don't read the Star any longer (Haroon Siddiqui comparing the Tamil Tigers' protests, which included putting women and children in frontlines of the Gardiner fuck-up, put an end to that), but I did want to see how they reported this story. The first few paragraphs are an emotional shitcake of soggy victimizing: the powers that be "hunted" her down; she left sobbing; she can't find a job as a pharmacist now, etc. Not a word about the months and months of accomodating OUTRAGEOUS requests, requests that were likely only accomodated because the teacher didn't want people mislabeling her a racist. But a racist is what you are if you say anything, ANYTHING bad about a person outside your ethnic bracket. I know people who drop their voice to say black, they're so terrified. It's the Thought Police on patrol, unfortunately.

  9. From the stories in French, it was not a "My way or your way approach". Now, I don't pretend to know what really happened, just what was reported in the news. The teacher did try to accomodate Mrs. Ahmed. She was never asked to remove the niqab in front of the class for example. She was asked to remove it only in front of her teacher, a woman, for the oral part of the class only.

    What seems to have happen is:
    – Mrs Ahmed would have to reveal our face only to her teacher.
    – For the oral presentation, she was facing away from the class, so that no one other than the teacher (a female) would see her face

    They say that at first, it did work, but then Mrs Ahmed was asking for more and more, ranging from asking men to change places, to simply refusing to revealing her face in any circumstances.

    That's when she was expelled: when she stopped cooperating.

    She still have the possibility to take the online course. Or she could decide to go back to wearing the hijab, which she wore until just a few years ago.

    I'm from Quebec (living in Ontario now). I don't see more or less intolerant people in Ontario or in Quebec. The question is not whether or not we want to accept people with other values, culture or religion, but more: do we want to put up with those making extreme decisions, often not even accepted in their original countries? I think we shouldn't.

    • Well, that's an interesting point about the conversion from the hijab to the niqab. Unfortunately for Ms. Ahmed, it lends credence to the idea that Muslims do not wish to integrate and instead will flagrantly display their superior "otherness" in the infidel's lair. I honestly do not know what else to make of a person who, after immigrating to a free and democratic country, would choose to alienate herself even further by wearing an even more extreme, politicized garment. Seems to me Ahmed will continue to find it difficult to succeed in a country she wishes to have no part of.

      • Perhaps your idea of success and that of an agent provocateur for Islam and sharia are two different things.

      • Not all Muslims webster. In all of this, we should still be careful not to completely generalize when someone acts, in our views, unreasonable.

    • "Do we want to put up with those making extreme decisions, often not even accepted in their original countries?"

      Could you please outline all forms of clothing which you feel are 'extreme' so that the rest of us can avoid conflicting with your world view?

      Thanks.

  10. I thought Egypt was more secular than this. She won't remove the mask because she's having a laugh at our expense. Must be refreshing to watch everyone scramble because you insist on your witch costume.

    • I think you're right about having a laugh. The joke is on us.

      Egypt is not secular. When Obama was there, he endorsed some kind of bill which made it illegal to criticize Islam. Also, there is a fractional division among women who do and do not wear the mask of choice. Allllllllsooooo, a man can say "I wish a divorce" three times and it is so, and a woman must take her loathsome husband to court and ask for it. Doesn't sound very secular to me.

    • She can't remove her bag if she wants to be alive. She is living under constant threat of bodily harm. By the way, do we know for sure that it's a She under the bag?

      • Does it matter?

  11. "The niqab should command no more cultural respect than a guy walking into class in Darth Vader's getup and demanding the women be removed from his line of vision. "

    Brilliant observation.

    • And hilarious. My keyboard is now wearing much of my morning coffee.

      Mind you, walking into a room wearing a Darth Vader suit pretty much guarantees that women will remove THEMSELVES from your line of vision.

  12. The niqab isn't the problem, immigration is,
    why is this woman here, and why is her hushand here?
    it's not like we have a manpower shortage. We do have a job shortage.
    End all immigration. It's not good for Canada.

    • Well your an idiot!

      Canada would not exist without immigration!

      And yes we do have a manpower shortage. The job shortage you refer to is because lazy Canadians want to work union/government jobs with benefits, bells and whistles ( that Canadians can no longer afford) rather than the labour intensive jobs that are available and out there. ie you never see white people picking blue berry's (sorry for the stereotype).

      • Supply and demand. If farmers aren't able to get workers picking berries at the wages that they're offering, it means the wages are too low and they need to raise them. The suggestion that it is okay to bring in immigrants solely for the purpose of businesses exploiting them at slave labour wages is hardly a ringing endorsement of our immigration system.

        Yes, this will mean inflation. Then again, it might not be a bad idea for people to understand the real costs of what they consume.

        • Exactly. Are you going to pick berries for $9 an hour? Because that's the going rate. Immigration has ALWAYS been about exploiting the poor countries for their citizens, who then will occupy the lowest socioeconomic rung. Immigration does need to be reined in — why are the doors open when the unemployment rate in Toronto, which receives the vast majority of immigrants to Ontario, is in the double digits? Makes no goddamn sense. Neither does spending $350 million on making Ontario universities more appealing to international students while tuition costs continue to skyrocket for its citizens, but that's our system.

        • There are lots of students who could use that $9 an hour. Farmers will sponosr immigrants – providing housing & transportation. What about running ads at student employemnt offices & offering same deal? The fruit & vegetable jobs are only seasonal – so whats the point of bringing in foreigners – some of who stay illegally?
          In Britain, the myth of needing more immigration to prop up the economy is blowing up in their faces- and people are fighting back against it.
          Politicians are the biggest benefactors of mass immigration.

      • no, canada would not exist without pioneers and settlers. there's a difference between settlers and immigrants, mainly, settlers move to an unpopulated area and through hard work create a place for themselves and their families to live. immigrants leave settled areas for other settled areas, and, these days at least, usually end up taking advantage of the new country's welfare system.

    • You're a genius. How is that economics thesis coming along?

    • Your absolutely right Dave. immigration is a tool used by racist employers to get cheap labour without health or safety benefits for the worker. Employers whom detest the free market and prefer feudalism.

      It is used by politicains to get the ethnic vote when normal people who grew up in the country would not be caught dead voting for them

      The liberals have been completely fooled by the very worst examples of capitalists exploiters who have sucessfully convinced them that if your against immigration then your clearly a rascist.

  13. This Lady has a clear political agenda, testing the limits of the law and testing the patience of the quebec governement, she was treated with respect and dignity especially as we are more and more sensitive with the issue of reasonable accomodations and unfortunately, she did not treat her classmates with the same respect. This is not racism or xenophobia, its just taking in account the rights of the other students in the class. I'm glad the College stood its ground.

    • Which one?

  14. Ah, the slippery slope of being offended! You know, it's not a human right not to be offended, not yet anyway. As someone has already stated, I'm offended by the niqab, and the hijab, for that matter. I'm a woman, but I see it as offensive in its obsequisness to a male-dominated society, and as a symbol of female subjegation, which women all over the world have fought long and hard against. It represents all that is ugly and backward about the Islamic faith, and prevents full integration into western societies. the first priority of a government towards immigrants should be to help them assimilate. Free French lessons just doesn't cut it.

    • excellent….but as I have said for some time now….where on earth is the women's movement in all this? I was a teenager in 1975- the Year of the Woman- during which the slogan was "Why NOT?"

      Indeed. So where are these women now who have benefited from an open-minded approach to womens' rights? Why are they (you) not taking the issue of Islam's 7th century view of women? Seems to me they have been strangely mute on the incredible subjugation that these covered, genitally-mutilated, disfigured and systematically-debased women of conservative Islam facde on a daily basis.

      Or does the multi-culti nonsense of the left trump womens' rights?

      • Yes it does. Leftist activists don various guises like "feminist" or "gay rights" but when their major piety multiculturalism comes in conflict with these, they are jettisoned.

        • Don't you think that feminism should support this woman's right to wear the clothes she wants? Rather than wearing the clothes that are required by law / culture? I'm fairly certain that's what all that bra burning was all about.

      • Where are the women, indeed. I can't even look at these women; it takes a lot of energy averting my gaze all day long, but it's so offensive I can't bear it.

  15. Canada is a country founded on immigration. Immigrants flock to our country because we are free society and respect the traditions and beliefs of those who want to call Canada home.
    At what point do Canadians need to draw the line?
    Arabs from the extreme factions of the Muslim faith do not respect the basic values of what makes Canada great. ie. equality to women, sharia law, religious freedom ( remember we are the infidels) and the list really does go on and on.
    Yet here we are discussing the rights of individuals who don't believe in what makes Canada great! Its ridiculous!
    It is not racist to deny groups of people that do not respect Canadian values the right to enter the country. It is not wrong to stand against backward religious ideas like the Niqab.
    If a starship full of Klingons landed in Canada each with their own batliff (a funky sword) running around killing people who verbally dishonored them would Canadians stand back and say, "well its their culture and we need to respect that". Now with exception of the Globe and Mail,,,,,,,,,,,,, NO!
    No one in Canada wants to be labelled a racist, we are a nice people who sometimes get carried away with our hospitality and the sooner we recognize when enough is enough the better all Canadians will be.
    PS: Way to go Quebec!

    • Well put! (except for the Star Trek analogy, but I'll take the good with the bad to celebrate the broader point being made here)

    • This whole comment was amusingly naive.

      Canada was founded on immigration. Yes, like India, like China, like the whole of Europe, like Russia, like every countries on earth. Some migrated here 2-3-4000 years ago, others 400 years ago. Some in Alaska were there when Canada existed only as a block of ice. So what? They were immigrants too? 150 000 years ago, humans were only in Africa… and they went on to commit a genocide in Europe, destroying the Neanderthals from Germany and the Cro-Magnons from France. Bastards! They stole their land?

      Stop repeating this lie, it doesn't make it true. Every countries on earth was built by migrating humans… cause that is what humans do. They can be born in one place… and reproduce somewhere else. They done so since the dawn of civilisation, as part of wars, as part of slave trading, as part of conquests, etc. You think the Egyptians of today have anything to do with the Ancient Egyptians for instance? Or the people who inhabit the country that is now called France with the borders it have… are as they always were? Nonsense.

    • Canadian don't know that Muslim is not a race, which is evident even in the majority of comments here ("it's not racist," 'I'm not racist," "this isn't racism," etc). People are so afraid of being labeled a racist they can't even describe folks accurately anymore (TM Russell Peters).

    • JB: yours is an excellent letter. Please read Diana West's "Death of the Grown Up" to get the full (scary) story.

    • Did you actually compare people wearing clothing you don't like to aliens wandering around, killing people? You really don't see the difference?

  16. But another thing, if we don't put boundaries to where you have to identify yourself to prevent fraud (like in voting booth or else where we must be sure to give a services to the right person, like in a school for exams) People will eventually (if not had been done already) want to capitalize on this to have services without identifying themselves….that worries me, it can lead to identity theft, who would prove it was who they pretend to be, it's hard enough without any kind of religious symbol…you would just add up. How would you prove that you wife wasn't the one under de niquab if someone tried to pass as her to get her birth certificate or get any other personal effects? With a birth certificate and your address, a lot of documents and money could get out of ones pocket….and all of this without even being able to identify the thief, you can identify anybody with their eyes only….it is a risk I don't want to take…EVER.

    PS sorry for my English, I at least try English, I have yet to see many English to that..

    • Your English is fine. What's missing in many of these rights debates is human nature. Given any human an inch and they will take a mile.

  17. Mark Steyn never disappoints. Canadians have finally crossed the line and are card-carrying, full-fledged lefty-looney tunes. Lady, you want to live here? .. lose the face coverage – period, dot, end of discussion. If that upsets you, go to a Muslim country where this is the culture.
    I am still laughing at the Canadians who were so frightened of the 100 lb. Anne Coulter. Don't Canadians learn the phrase,' sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you.' as children? Americans do, and as much as I am saddened seeing our Country going the way of Detroit, I am comforted that I can openly say that President Obama is a liar, a socialist, anti-free market idiot who is hell bent on destroying the US. There, I've said it. Note to Canadians – this is what liberty is all about. Dissenting when you disagree. When Bush was President they called him every name in the book and that was great patriotism and their dissent was a noble cause. NO ONE GROUP is as intolerant as the leftist progressives.

    • My goodness I hope you feel better now. Frightening to think that people like you are in our midst. Hope I never run into you, or the likes of you, in the real world. What venom you spew, such unsufferable pain you must be in.

      • What a wimp you are, Cooper. I hope you're not Canadian.

        • Mature debate point.

          • This is what was said.

            "My goodness I hope you feel better now. Frightening to think that people like you are in our midst. Hope I never run into you, or the likes of you, in the real world. What venom you spew, such unsufferable pain you must be in".

            Anyone who whines like that without actually debating any of the facts, Running Gag, deserves no respect at all. Posters should either confront what was actually said or find another place to display their inner fears. He showed no respect for the previous poster so there is no reason why he should expect any.

          • "But…! He started it!"

            Again, mature debating point.

          • Just who are you quoting here, Running Gag?

            He shared his feelings and I shared mine. Where is your problem?

    • JudyM, I like your comments

      Conan
      USA

    • So Ann Coulter gets to say whatever she wants but the protesters don't? Remember, SHE is the one who cancelled the engagement. She's probably fully supportive of the threats against Democrats over health care, but can't handle a few university protesters? Unlike in her own country, the odds of the protesters having guns would be remarkably low; methinks she cancelled just to get all the attention that resulted.

      Don't get me wrong; I think she should be able to say whatever she wants. I might even agree with, say, 1 out of every 100 statements. I just think that she had ulterior motives for cancelling.

      As for Steyn… I disagree with him at least as often as I agree – but he nailed this one.

      • No, Keith in Brampton, she did not cancel her speech. She was waiting to go on when she got word it was canceled. It was the mealy-mouthed letter from Houle that contributed most to this national embarrassment.

        • No, GRANT. Her handlers cancelled her speech – which would mean Ezra Levant & "her people" & herself. If you read more widely, you would already know this fact, which has been openly reported. Coulterists, however, keep passing around this myth & hoping to make it retroactively true. FACT: Ann Coulter Cancelled her speech. The U. of Ottawa did NOT cancel Ann Coulter's speech. I know you can grasp that truth if you try. (And please, do a little research.)

          • Ezra Levant made the announcement (though she had no knowledge of it at the time) because her safety, obviously, was in jeopardy. This mob is apparently against free speech but definitely pro-violence..

            What an embarrassment these gutless bullies are to Canada! They bring shame to a once proud nation!

          • no CANNURSE. the police cancelled her speech, which would mean the RCMP, according to anne herself. just because something is widely reported does not make it true. if you read more widely, you would already know this fact.

          • It's always the people threatening violence who get their way. They get to speak when they want to speak (the crowd that labels Israel apartheid) and they get to shut up anyone who opposes them (the thugs who got the Coulter speech canceled on the advice of the police). You'll notice it's always leftists and Muslims who are the violent ones.

            Not a single leftist speaker invited to speak at a university has been hounded out because though they are incredibly offensive, (for example praising communist governments that have slain millions which is no better than cheering the nazis), the conservatives they offend walk the walk on freedom of speech. On the other hand too many misnamed liberals and other leftists are flaming hypocrites of the "Free speech for me but not for thee" variety.

          • "You'll notice it's always leftists and Muslims who are the violent ones. "

            Absolutist statements are typically incorrect: Abortion clinic bombings / shootings.

          • Oh, also, an interesting new trend resulting from the health care debate:

            http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/ap_on_re_us/u

            "Democratic Congress members are getting lessons from the FBI on how to handle threats such as several directed at their colleagues, including bricks hurled through windows and menacing obscenity-laced phone messages left for those who supported sweeping federal health care legislation."

      • do you really not see the difference between anne coulter making a speech some people don't want to hear (but many others did), and a mob of screaming students barricading people inside a building and causing panic by setting off a fire alarm? not to mention damaging property and threatening bodily harm? i can guarantee you that 9 out of 10 of those "protesters" had no idea who anne coulter even was, or had ever bothered to read and article she wrote or researched anything about her before they decided to crash her appearance. those people were breaking the law. they knew it, the university knew it, and the cops knew it, and nobody stopped them because anne coulter represents something they can't handle: the truth.

        • It was obvious from the behaviour of the protesters just who committing 'hate speech' but i doubt the CHRC will do anything about it.

  18. Obviously a great text, with great insight.

    On another note: Once in a while, it's also fun to see an Anglo enjoying him/herself in Quebec in a Franco environment. And speaking french. See, if you visit here and you just even remotely try to speak french, our cold hearts will melt and take good care of you. It's the same thing as when you travel to Italy, Spain or Germany: they'll help you out if you're nice and you make an effort. It's not hard to learn a couple of basic sentences in any language. If I go to Calgary, I'll obviously not impose myself in French, eh ?

    • My experience on Quebeckers' tolerance of Anglophones trying to speak their language is mixed. Some will encourage you; some will impatiently ask you to speak English because their English is better than your French & you are frustrating them (which doesn't help when you're trying to learn the language) – and some idiots, unaware that often one's comprehension is better than one's ability to speak, will say nasty things about you in French (something which goes a long way toward perpetuating stereotypes). Much, I suspect, like a Francophone's experiences in English Canada…

      • More like any human's experience in any country on Earth.

    • I've travelled through Europe as a young adult. I had my Frommer's Europe on $25/day and my multilanguage dictionary for certain words, like, "please, thank you, how much, taxi" etc. Half the time i would just point and put my money out and hope the merchant was honest. I honestly don't think I was ever ripped off.

      Your's is a good comment.

  19. Its all about rights, and whose rights trump who.Rights are just wishes, some set in law.

    • Just rip it off her body every time she appears and just say oops,sorry.Or refuse her entrance because it is not permitted to cover ones face in class for any reason.No religious garb allowed camel lady.Oh did i tell you i don't give a shiite about political correctness.

      • "Just rip it off her body every time she appears and just say oops,sorry."

        This would be assault. I dare you to try it. See what happens when real men beat the hell out of you for assaulting an unarmed woman.

        "No religious garb allowed camel lady."

        Camel lady? You understand that being against political correctness doesn't mean that you have to be a bigot, correct? You can speak your mind without resorting to juvenile, racist insults.

  20. When you come into my house, you will be welcomed, honored and respected, perhaps even asked to dinner, wined and feted.

    If you disrespect my house, refuse to abide by the rules of my house, dishonor my family, mistreat my dog, or impose your own rules upon the members of my household, you will be asked to leave. Perhaps forcibly, if you push the envelope.

    I would expect the same if the roles were reversed. To expect otherwise would be foolish. Garments that hide identity are suspicious at best, malevolent and threatening in their worst connotations. We have no reason in this day and age to believe otherwise. Lose the niquab or get out.

    • We are not allowed to have a "house" where things are done the Canadian way and we are allowed to exert social pressure to assimilate newcomers to certain basic rules. Instead we ourselves risk being hauled off to the nearest Human Wrongs Commission if we are not welcoming enough to those foreign cultures (not all) that want to change everything about us. Every devout Muslim does not separate mosque and state and promotes movement toward sharia law which is incompatible with Canadian law.

      Anyone who sets foot on Canadian soil is immediately granted rights that we could only dream of if we entered any Muslim country illegally or legally for that matter.

      NB There is not a single Muslim country out of 57 that grants equal rights to non-Muslims.

      This utter lack of reciprocity means that a Muslim gets to have his way in 57 Muslim countries which have been pretty well ethnically cleansed but we cannot have a Canada that discontinues Muslim immigration on the basis that they bring more negatives than net benefit. What's theirs is exclusively theirs but what's ours is also theirs.

      Judging by the dismal performance of those 57 Muslim countries, the World needs more Canada, not more World in Canada, especially not more Muslim world in Canada. We have better things to do with our time and money than try to break up jihadi plots in Toronto and Montreal.

      • "NB There is not a single Muslim country out of 57 that grants equal rights to non-Muslims."

        It's wonder why more people aren't falling all over themselves to immigrate to Morrocco, isn't it? Have you read "The Caged Virgin" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali? As a Somali Muslim turned Dutch parliamentarian turned national security risk (to the Netherlands, that is) she outlines exactly why it is Muslims are completely and utterly unable to succeed in the West. Their values simply do not allow it. It's a very pressing, succinct read; she also suggests how Muslim women can extricate themselves and legislation the West should be imposing to help apostates and shunt extremists.

    • Right on! We know what their plan is; get a foothold where it is their "right", and soon the ideology is accepted and even embraced. So sad. Many I know from the Maritimes cannot see what they are allowing to happen there. It's time someone said "NO!" Yes, and I also support the Crusades.-

  21. "Its all about rights, and whose rights trump who. Rights are just wishes, some set in law. "

    Just to be clear, my rights trump your rights.

    • I'm guessing you had your tongue in cheek when you said: "Just to be clear, my rights trump your rights."

      But liberals actually believe that. They don't believe in equal rights, but a hierarchy with a gay, non-white non-Christian on top and white heterosexual male on the bottom.

      Only white women get to be more equal than their men. Arabic/Muslim men are allowed to subjugate their women with the whole barbaric panoply of forced marriage, polygamy, circumcision, honor killings and mummification. For example, if a white woman converts and marries a Muslim man, she falls to the bottom of the pile with no rights even to her children in case of divorce. Not even a white hetero male is subjected to the physical oppression visited on a Muslim female by a primitive ideology and culture.

      • "But liberals actually believe that. They don't believe in equal rights, but a hierarchy with a gay, non-white non-Christian on top and white heterosexual male on the bottom. "

        I happen to be what you would classify a 'liberal' (I assume that you are using the McCarthyism). I believe that everyone should be treated equally. Could you provide citation for your claim that 'liberals' advocate for subjugation of white males to the whims of the super-race of homosexual, Islamo-Asians?

        "For example, if a white woman converts and marries a Muslim man, she falls to the bottom of the pile with no rights even to her children in case of divorce"

        In Canada? Citation needed.

        • "For example, if a white woman converts and marries a Muslim man, she falls to the bottom of the pile with no rights even to her children in case of divorce"

          Actually, Running Gag, the real risk would be a Muslim woman converting Judaism to marry, for example, a Jewish man. The odds of her survival would be slim.

          • Citation needed.

            You are painting a wide brush with your comment. Are you willing to label ALL Muslim men as violent misogynists capable of killing a woman simply because she converted or married outside of her culture?

          • What citation are you wanting?

            "You are painting a wide brush with your comment"

            Yes, indeed.

            "Are you willing to label ALL Muslim men as violent misogynists capable of killing a woman simply because she converted or married outside of her culture? "

            Re read the post. Where did i say that?

            I only said the odds of her survival would be slim, not that she'd be marked for certain death. This is Canada.

            But of course if she were in a Muslim dominated country, where it would be illegal, her chances of survival would be nil.

          • Oh, my apologies, as her chances would be slim (not zero), that would mean that not ALL Muslim men are violent misogynists capable of killing a woman simply because she converted or married outside of her culture. Its just most Muslim men that are violent misogynists capable of killing a woman simply because she converted or married outside of her culture?

            Good to know.

            As for citation:

            Please provide evidence that "most Muslim men that are violent misogynists capable of killing a woman simply because she converted or married outside of her culture."

          • you sound so utterly utterly naive – yes that's exactly how the Muslim world works.

  22. Boring !!!!

  23. Spot on as ever Mark. One more sad affair to reflect upon in what has been a depressing week for Conservatives everywhere: We have the Coulter affair up here in Canada, which shows the extent to which genuine political debate in this country has been asphyxiated by the progenies of Trudeaupian "values"; the US passes Obamacare and the Great One is sufficiently emboldened to dismiss the tens of millions of Americans who opposed it as mere "cynics" or agents of "special interests"; and in the UK, it seems that Gordon Brown could secure re-election despite doing to the UK economy what the pope has never done to a woman (well not one of legal age anyway).

    • A few kids disappointed that they could not get in to hear what comedian Coulter had to say is no different from the reaction of any other disappointed gang of fans/supporters/curioustypes, they tend to overreact. But there was no threat. A fire alarm pulled is not a threat. A loud crowd is not a threat. Bimbos with big mouths who insult others like Coulter herself does is pure entertainment and when other Canadian or British versions of her spew off in public it's good for a laugh but nobody takes them seriously do they?

  24. What's wrong with Darth Vader? You got something against cosplayers, Mark Steyn? Geez.

  25. "Not because of its risible separatist movement, for which the only rational explanation is that it was never anything but one almighty bluff for shakedown purposes. "

    Sure dude, what other explanations could there be, given how respecful and tolerant Canadians are towards Quebec, I mean you're always on our side whatever we do here in Quebec. As a frenchie I feel so 'at home' in Calgary. How could we actually want to break apart from such a country, beats me.
    We must have had our brains washed by the evil separatiss Nazis. How could you explain it otherwise he. Canada is PERFECT, it's me who's wrong.
    PS In case you didn't realize, it was irony.

    • Tell you what, mon ami. Next time you have a referendum, let us all vote on it if you really want to separate. If it's not merely a bluff to get more goodies, that is.

      • You know what eh ? We could get rid of these parasites easily, eh ? We should all move to Gatineau and vote "Yes" for the next referendum, eh ? Than move back to the ROC the next day. Those stupid lazy Quebecers are so busy wasting our petro-dollars, they'll never see it come ! EH ?

        Go 'google translate' that, chum: Je n'ai jamais lu quelque chose d'aussi stupide depuis l'éditorial du Globe.

    • PS, In case YOU didn't realize, it was sarcasm. Irony means something else.

      • Are you going "Grammar Nazi" on him ?

        Does it make you feel better to point out errors/mistakes done by a francophone ?

        "Yeah he's stupid, can't even write good english, eh?"

        Do you read, write or speak any other langugage than English ?

        If so, in the process of learning these languages, have you ever made a mistake ?

        No mistake? Never ?

        Ok then — my bad.

        • Ironie du sort, je suis français. But, no, I am not hesitant to correct basic comprehension in either language.

          • Ironie et sarcasme are the same words in english or french. Many people confuse them since that Canadian singer-songwriter named Alanis Morissette wrote a whole song redefining that word.

          • Sarcasm is spoken, irony is observed

        • If someone doesn't understand the difference between irony and sarcasm it's not because of lack of language skills be because of not understanding the proper concepts belonging to each.

          Your tongue lashing was uncalled for.

      • Good catch. You beat me to it!

        PS: the sarcasm wasn't anything to write home about either!

    • You do know the widely accepted Internet convention that the first person to make a Nazi reference loses the argument so incorporating it in your "handle" is counter-productive to say the least?

      Quebec owes Canada an apology, not the other way around, for being a socialist moocher who can't afford all the goodies she votes herself and pays for it with money gouged from other provinces under the ridiculously unfair Equalization program. Then Charest actually has the nerve to slag the only sugar Daddy left that can afford her demands, Alberta for its oil sands. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

      Go, instead of the constant empty threats to cut your own throat with a knife. Take the truncated part of Quebec not claimed by the Natives, your share of the national debt incurred disproportionately on your behalf and leave the ROC 9 Billion a year richer in Equalization alone plus all the other gushers like money wasted on bilingualism. See how long French lasts in North America without its buffer and subsidizer. Or work harder and pay for your own day care and university tuitions.

      • There's no doubt that Quebec's a whiny moocher (well, it's separatists, mostly). But on the accommodation issue, the province is right. Let's give credit where it is due.

        • Minaka didn't speak on the accomodation issue. She's completely right on all counts. Welfare is a scourge on this country for both the providers and the benefactors. You have any doubt, visit any courthouse in Ontario on any given day.

  26. The "Veil" appears in Canada… The 'Useful Idiots' think: "This time things will be different!"

    Another domino falls…

  27. A bigger question is why was this woman even allowed in our country? Immigrants who do not believe and agree; the equality of men and women, that clitorectomy on a minor is illegal, that marrying a child is illegal, that they will obey the primacy of Canadian law over Sharia law, the right to renounce your religion for something else without fear of violence and the right to free speech including criticism about religions, shouldn't be allowed into Canada.
    What possible benefits do Muslims bring to our country?

    • I can't think of any… None… Zero… Nada… Zilch…

      Except for creamy brown skin and flowing black hair… A little more aggressive than the supposedly restrained Catholic hotties, but defiantly worth the pain… The fear of losing my head makes the pursuit that much more 'thrilling'…

      Best of all… Contraception is OK for 'Allah Chicks'..

      Thanks to plastic surgery, hymens are repairable… Every muslim chick I get the chance to 'get to know' has a hymen plan to please their 'Daddy'…

    • It's not just a "cliterectomy" — it's the total removal of the clitoris and labia, and then the raw flesh is sewn up, leaving only a tiny hole to p*ss out of. The result is a knotty scar that a man has to tear apart in order to have intercourse. But, oh happy day!, at least he knows no one else has been there before him!

    • It's not just the removal of the clitoris; they also cut off the entire labia and then sew up the bleeding flesh, leaving only a tiny hole to p*ss out of. The result is a knotted scar that a man mush tear apart, by any means, in order to have intercourse with said disfigured woman. But, oh happy day!, at least he knows no one else has been there before him!

      • It seems like that is all you are capable of focusing on , Grow up man!

    • You have evidence, of course, to prove that all Muslims support these things that you have listed?

  28. Well I will get a lot of bashing but as a Quebeker… I must say that most quebekers are not even Christian anymore and if you get your fact right, we have taken all christianism signs out our school by choice but also by respect to the other religion who couldn't go to a religious private school…But certainly not in the sake of letting all other religion take over…We only want to have a religious free environment for all, so that all can be free in their home it practice whatever religion they want.

    Why should we accept sign of religion where the school in most of their origin country does not even allows it?

    AS for the niquab, you fella english may see it any way you want but would you like to be asked to move from your seat to let a lady you don't even see that could as well be a man for what we can know from what we can see. In school, she may ask a cousin of her to do the exams..Who would know…How to know…?

  29. If I asked for every woman in a room to be moved out of my site, how far would I get with the progressive, tolerance-as-religion crowd?

    I bet that I'd be the one being hauled before a human rights tribunal for my blatant misogyny. So wy is it that the left, always looking for discrimination at every turn, has managed to miss the obvious sexism here?

    Oh, right… White males will never qualify for "victim" status. Unless they're gay, I suppose. And here we see exactly where the hierarchy of victim group "justice" falls apart. Whose identity group gets top billing?

    • Well, so far multicult (non-white) trumps gays and feminism. And gay and feminist activists (they certainly don't represent the majority of either gays or women) are fine with that because they are more leftist than their other identities and multicult is the leftist sacred cow.

    • Of course, the logical conclusion to this woman demanding that men be removed from her sight is to force her to change the clothes she chooses to wear. We, the white males, should force her to dress in the way that we prefer, rather than the way the Islamic males prefer in the country she came from.

      The alternative, informing her that, in Canada, everyone is treated equally, and that her hangups will not be a legitimate reason to force men to acquiesce to her demands, is unacceptable and simply pandering by the left.

      This is what you are saying, correct?

      • "Of course, the logical conclusion to this woman demanding that men be removed from her sight is to force her to change the clothes she chooses to wear".

        Where is the logic in that? You might want to think that over a while longer.

        • This is what is being defended both in the article and in the comments section. People so are annoyed by this woman (and apparently all Muslims, homosexuals, liberals, progressives, 'leftists', feminists?!?, etc.) that they have decided that it is okay for us to decide what is an appropriate mode of dress for women in Canada.

          I find it interesting that we (generally, the white males) have decided that it is appropriate for us to tell these women how to dress because we disagree with how they've been told to dress by the people (generally, the Islamic males) in the country that they've come from. I see it as somewhat ironic, not mention hypocritical. And, it makes me wonder where the real feminists are regarding this issue.

          • You really should read the article before commenting, Running Gag

          • Have you actually read the comments section? Rather than just following me around? Seriously, read through them. Its comment after comment of people talking about left wing consperacies used to oppress white people. Its comments like, "just rip it [the niqab] off her," or, "what possible benefits do Muslims bring to our country," or, "I have become sick to my stomach when I see muslims."

            Not to mention the hate filled comments about aboriginals, feminists, and people whose only sin is holding a different political view.

            I never knew such hate existed in this country I love. I am so sad; so disillusioned. And people wonder why immigrants lean on their culture and ethnic groups for support; with hate like I've seen on here, I would be too.

          • Yes, I read all the comments and it was you who first responded to me. Don't be rude.

            "just rip it [the niqab] off her," is a foolish comment and "I have become sick to my stomach when I see muslims." was isaid in some jesy, if I recall, but certainly "what possible benefits do Muslims bring to our country" is a legitimate question to ask.

            As you might not know, there have been several plans by Muslims to commit crimes in Canada (and please spare me the "Not all Muslims are terrorists" line. We know. We really, really know!). Sooner or later they will get lucky. So the question we should be asking ourselves is whether the benefits, whatever they might be, are worth the risks.

            Do you have an opinion on this?

            "I am so sad; so disillusioned".

            Yeah, you're a Liberal all right.

          • "Yes, I read all the comments and it was you who first responded to me. Don't be rude. "

            Ironic considering, "Yeah, you're a Liberal all right." I assume that there's an argument here?

            ""just rip it [the niqab] off her," is a foolish comment and "I have become sick to my stomach when I see muslims." was isaid in some jesy, if I recall, but certainly "what possible benefits do Muslims bring to our country" is a legitimate question to ask.

            As you might not know, there have been several plans by Muslims to commit crimes in Canada (and please spare me the "Not all Muslims are terrorists" line. We know. We really, really know!). Sooner or later they will get lucky. So the question we should be asking ourselves is whether the benefits, whatever they might be, are worth the risks.

            Do you have an opinion on this? "

            I guess I just can't dismiss hatred as easily as you can. Its one thing to see this kind of irrational anger on the NP forums, but usually the commentary on Mcleans has a less rhetorical bent to it.

            It should be noted that in the last twenty years there have been seven terrorist attacks in Canada. One was a Sikh group against another Sikh, one was an anti-Iranian Islamic group against the Iranian embassy, four were incidents of domestic terrorism by Caucasians (one was an attack on a Jewish library, so I can't be certain on that one).

            I would also mention that as Canadians we've already admitted that identifying and punishing groups of people for the behaviour (or possible behaviour) of some of their members (I'm thinking of Japanese internment camps as an example) does not fall within the Canadian value structure.

          • Oh, also, an interesting twist in the debate:

            Christian militia group accused of seditious conspiracy, attempted use of WMDs

            http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/29/christian-mi

            "Nine members of a Christian militia group known as Hutaree (website Google cache) were today indicted on multiple charges involving an alleged plot to attack police, including seditious conspiracy and attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, announced the U.S. Attorney in Michigan. Reports: New York Times, Talking Points Memo. No coincidence they're in Michigan, it would seem: the group reportedly planned attacks on Muslims in Detroit and elsewhere. The state is home to some of America's largest and most densely populated Muslim communities."

  30. What a superb article. Living as a French-Canadian in Ontario amongst guilt-ridden Anglo lefties can be lonely at times, especially when I'm labelled as parochial, racist, intolerant, stupid, or ignorant simply for defending Anglo-European values. It's time for English Canadians to fighting back. Get to work.

    • It's not that easy. Anglos have been brainwashed into eternal guilt, with not a small contribution coming from francophones.

      Thanks for being the exception.

      • The next question, then, is what will it take? I believe a lot of Canadians understand the "undesirableness" of Islam in our midsts, but many attribute it to being an American problem. That is, Muslims hate Americans, they love Canadians. I was at a comedy club once and a Muslim comic made a joke about the terrorists not wanting to touch Canada. Well, we know that's not true, don't we, and we know the homegrown Toronto 18 is just the beginning. I'm scared everyday knowing one day the buildings will be falling down around me or the subway will implode or a suicide bomber will walk into City Hall and "martyr" himself. I believe it will take a homegrown terror attack before Canadians wake up. In fact, I've hardly seen any outrage about the courts asking to repatriate Khadr back to Canada. In print, he's referred to as a child solider. How old were the Trenchcoat Mafia idiots? Any why does no one ask what this Canadian was doing in a terrorist training camp? Useful idiots, indeed.

  31. I honestly wish every other province including the one I live in, Ontario, follows Quebec's lead in banning not ONLY the niqab but other religious symbols! It's funny how some people feel her human rights her violated but does anyone consider that she had the gall to ask the male students to look the other way when she wanted to make her speech. Thankfully this request was shot down but then she went on to make her presentation not facing the class. How ridiculuous is this!

    I keep telling this to people but if you give immigrants an inch, they will take a mile with regards to religious customs. Quebec ought to be commended for taking such a stance….it takes a lot of guts to not follow the PC line of "respecting immigrants rights". And it's disgusting to see that in my province a spokeswoman for the Immigration minister, Indira Harris-Naidoo says that "We are an open Ontario. We are committed to creating an open society where all Ontarians are respected.". How can we be open when people like Ahmed close themselves from the rest of society.

    Get a reality check, English Canadians….we cannot live in this multicultural farce that only superficially exists!

    • The respect is always one way. Muslim immigrants are never asked to respect our ways. It is rude in Western cultures to hide your face. It is downright offensive.

      This woman was basically holding an entire class hostage to her idiosyncratic ways. That's very bad manners.

    • Put yourself in the shoes of the students (something I haven't observed in any of the articles once). Imagine some masked fool demanding an entire gender avert their gaze from her holy face. This seems like a pretty basic right or wrong issue to me, and it is absolutely puzzling how there could be any polarization on the issue. The woman was in disguise and the teacher asked her to remove her niqab so she could assist with pronunciation problems. She backpeddled every time and this is the result. What ever happened to my house, my rules? 'Show your face' is not unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

  32. Oh, and as long as were discussing freedom-loving egalitarian Ontario, who can forget Marion Boyd and her Shariah Law school project. If the Quebec National Assembly hadn't unanimously shot down that idea in their own province, who knows what Ontario would be like today.

    • This is true. Credit where credit is due.

      McWhimpy was all set to accommodate sharia in his deep ignorance of just what he was opening the way for. The fix was in when he chose NDP Marion Boyd who sure enough rubber stamped sharia. For once a group of Canadian women including some (former?) Muslims like a Quebec MP made enough noise in opposition that sharia was not allowed to sneak in through the back door.

  33. Canadian identity is very unclear. Frenchmen were always Canadian, while Anglos were British. We had a proper identity, inhabiting this land, there was no confusion. The Anglo-Canadian identity is barely 50 years old. The Canadien/Québécois identity is 400 years old, it's not really French in any significant way. Your flag remained the Union Jack, the hymn remained God Save The Queen. For as long as this was the case, the identity we called Canadian was mostly seen as the Habitants. The ones we now call the Quebecer defined the identity… that is now considered antithetic to your fictitious Canadian one. If you can't see Canada as a French country, you're not thinking this through. That is why, in the long run, I'd bet on my side to remain a strong presence in America… not the Anglos who call us fascists, talibans, racists, sectarian, etc. It's quite ironic how those media keep incriminating themselves of the things they accuse us of. This story is not only about the Niqab, it's about a system that is bent on ostracizing Quebecers no matter what.

    • "The Anglo-Canadian identity is barely 50 years old". That would be 1960. How is anyone supposed to take anything you say seriously after a whopper like that? And see Canada as a French country? You do know that you lost the Battle on the Plains of Abraham, right? You were allowed to keep your enclave of French out of Anglo decency that almost certainly would not have been reciprocated if French Canadians had emerged the victor.

  34. Mark Steyn define the many faces of Canada too, as he is Jewish-Catholic-Anglican-Baptist with a twist of Belgian Irishness, an overeducated Zionist neoconservative (I say those words with affection and regard, as I am too) that just happen to be a high school dropout, one with a posh accent that insert French in his texts, unlike almost everyone else in North-America. Being who he is, he has good motives to mock and ridicule Quebec; that doesn't work for Naomi Lakritz, who's showing her own bigotry, not exposing ours.

  35. I am sure I will be vilified but the truth is that slowly over the last few years I have become sick to my stomach when I see muslims. Is this allowable or will I be prosecuted?

    • I think it will become the rule, instead of the exception.

      It is too bad really, cause many so-called muslims are just plain good people trying to get a better life. But people like this lady ruin it for everyone else. It makes them all look fanatical and stubborn.

      It is harder to find someone who's open-minded about women wearing Niqab in Canada… than it is to find people open about the idea of turning us into a full-fledged communist dictatorship. I'm sure there is more people who agree with Stalin in this country than there is who does with Wahhabism and Salafism.

    • As a woman I am routinely disgusted by the burqas and the beards. To see the men carrying on a conversation while a woman watches — always watching, never participating — makes me sick. As a student, I very rarely hear them speak English both in and outside the classroom. I see a flagrant, unflagging effort to other themselves from the unbelievers and an unabashed air of superiority. I've have Muslims make demands of friends; men will not look upon the inferior infidel; shadow women appear before your eyes, some misguided attempt at humility. All eyes are you the black cloaked spectre in the room, honey, and it ain't good. I want to take the high road, but it's becoming increasingly difficult.

  36. The butt sniffing barking dogs of the gutless left are whining again.
    What this country needs to do is to be more intolerant of intolerance.

  37. One Country, One Vote is the UN… How many Countries are controlled by complete flucking idiots compared to 'relatively' realistic/scientific countries?

    Almost all.. Since we have been infested with the pro-jizya watermelon retards (literally meaning: Slowed down our awesome society)…

    WTFU

    W meaning Wake….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEC8nqT6Rrk

    Islam could never create this beauty…. Only in America… Or Canada… Thank Humans…

  38. People are afarid to "tick off" Muslims. But should they be? In Britain 40% of Islamic Muslims want sharia law. And the same survey found that 32% of British Muslims believe that western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end. But in Canada, especially in Ontario, we're afraid to even survey Muslims and then make public their views. Maybe Quebec wants to be sure that their culture isn't looking into a loaded barrel, which one day may erode any public display of secular values.

    • People have no idea what Islam is. They liken it to Christianity, but there's no water surfing beatnik in their fairytale. Jesus was a treehugger. Mohamed was a warrior. Apples and oranges, folks.

  39. Could this ever happen in Ontario?

    Three leading Swedish newspapers and the national broadcaster carried a cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed with a dog's body after an alleged plot to murder the artist who drew it was unveiled in Ireland.

    • Blasphemy, as an artform, must take back it's rights. I say, push it… make it worst, there is no saying you're sorry. We've destroyed Judeo-Christianity, don't believe for a second Islam is sacred… Churchill was only too mild.

      It is not the Koran that is like Mein Kampf. It is Mein Kampf that is like the Koran. Get that stuff in order, brother. Islam, as a philosophy, is as backward as cannibalistic tribalism. Allah is dead, Mohammed his prophet was a mass-murdering rapist pedophile.

      It's all just olden folk legends for idiots.

      See, that is just small examples of senseless blasphemy. There is no fair game to be given. Sade was doing much worst 200 years ago. So he was put in jail, but he is still admired today. Steyn mentionned S&M, but I'm sure he wasn't thinking of Sade there. Still, in context, we do need to have some Sade today to take them on, with words, not swords. Cause that's the battle they won't ever win. I'd love if we could find a Ahmed Sade. There is just Ayaan Hirsi Ali and I love her dearly for trying. We need a Muslim Nietzsche too.

      All religions will eventually be vanquished. By their very nature, they cannot sustain closer inspection, just obedience and submission. It may not happen in Ontario, but Québec have a rebelious spirit. Insulting Islam is nothing new, it just must continue being done, especially by muslims… which is where the blows will be most effective.

      • Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the most important woman living today. Fact.

  40. Islam can be a religion with an attitude far more potent than Christianity as practiced by the aging lefties who attend the United Church of Canada. Case in point, we can trash Christian points of view any time we like without fear of reprisal. But try it with Islam and it's a whole different set of circumstances. That's why our lefties feel completely safe when they participate in the annual Hate Fest. I'd like to see them or any group of Canadians have an annual anti-Burka week.

    • Dieter, we had the Renaissance and the Enlightenment

      The Muslim World missed out on that.

      We had the Marquis de Sade, Rimbaud and Nietzsche.

      We're not running backward to figure out we can't be as free as we were to think the way we did. We must remember that Blasphemy is a fine art. Saying Mary was a Jewish Whore is A-OK by me… and so is saying that Mohammed was a mass-murdering pedophile.

      The Marquis would roll in his grave if he could see how, 200 years later, we are that politically correct about "diversity". We are in a grossly reactionnary era, heading for a new dark age. We understood the world before. Now, we are just sorry.

      It use to be there was the civilised world and the barbarians. Since the Romans it's been that way. Ethnologues figured we were all equals. They were wrong, Zimbabwe is not as good as Québec. Sudan is not as great as Sweden. The United States is a much more advanced civilisation than Pakistan. Sorry, it is just that way. It's not racist, it's just a fact, they have a long uphill battle to fight to build themselves up to be as we are. We all can help out our fellow men, but they must rise up to follow our model. Liberal democracies is just a superior model, get on with the program. If you don't believe it is, go try another, emigrate out of Canada.

      • Are we clear on what racism is, though? I read in the Metro the other day how "racist" universities are. A Mr. Khan said he was so hurt when his white professor (white was stressed) said "I know some of you here are ESL students." This is new age racism. The fact that the majority in Toronto will be non-native English speakers in 20 years is forgotten; the fact that immigrants are shuttled into major cities is left aside; the fact that as a a student, speaking anecdotally, I encounter non-regional dialects more often than I do not is tripe. We can't even call a spade a spade lest that spade feel offended. Maybe we need to start showing my generation MISSISIPPI BURNING or AMISTAD if they want to know what racism is.

        This is coming from the same idiotic camp that said Ryerson isn't diverse enough and recommended black professors be hired over all others. Isn't it racist to hire someone on the basis of skin colour? Or does that not apply when the colour has pigmentation?

  41. I also think that Immigration, is the problem. How did this "lady" get dressed for her interview with Immigration officers either of the Federal Government (to obtain her admitting papers) in Egypt or those of representatives ot the Quebec Government , also in Egypt ?
    How was she dressed went she set foot on Canadian soil to "immigrate" to our country ? How was she dressed in front of our Immigration offricers at OUR boarder ?
    I would not be surprised that the niqab appeared only after she was here in Canada and after she went to the mosk and heard the inspiring preaches of the many " moderate" Imans in Montréal.
    As a Canadian citizen and part of the people who have built and developed this country for over 400 years, I am deeplay hurt, to say the least, by the stupidity and hatered shown towards Québec and Québecers by journalists of the ROC and there editorials.
    At least, I found some comfort reading M. Steyn's article and the comments above. All is not lost.
    ROC will wake up. In Québec, we are awake. The debate is raging.

  42. "I am deeplay hurt, to say the least, by the stupidity and hatered shown towards Québec and Québecers by journalists of the ROC and there editorials".

    No need to feel hurt at all, Québécoise. I'd say the majority of people in the ROC respect this decision. And I also feel there is too much negativism in the Quebec media regarding the attitudes of the ROC towards Quebec.

    Certainly many in the ROC were negative when the people of Quebec were wanting to separate, as it seemed a clear case that you were rejecting us. It's not an unnatural response.

    Quebec is the most interesting province in the county and I always feel warmly welcomed there, just as the people from Quebec are welcome in every other province.

    • Thanks Grant. Soothing!

      • Why is it that Quebec and the Quebecois are the ones who always need "soothing"? Perhaps the ROC needs some recognition from Quebec for the one sided care they have lavished on a singularly ungrateful populace. You could start by apologizing for sending the Bloc Quebecois to threaten to break up the country squeezing a disproportionate amount of federal funds while sucking up lifetime pensions from the country they are set on destroying. You should be ashamed of yourselves for that.

        As for the ROC condemning Quebec for striking a blow against Muslim cultural encroachment, that would be only the leftists (admittedly probably a majority outside of Alberta). Conservatives support your action. We are able to admit it when Quebec does something right that is beneficial to ALL of Canada, not just themselves.

        • For the record, a whole bunch of people you spit at as being "leftist" support Quebec's decision, too.

          • Why is it spitting on people to call them what they are, leftist? What else do people who vote Liberal, NDP, Bloc and Green, the spectrum from left to off the map left want to be called? And by the way, there's no Conservative party in Canada, just a centrist party and 4 leftist parties.

            Please step forward, lefties who support Quebec's stand against following Islamic precepts like dhimmi (non-Muslims who bow to every Muslim whim). So far your leaders and media pundits are still flogging the idea that Canadians need to make themselves doormats to over 200 imported cultures to put out the Welcome mat. The stress is never on what immigrants can contribute to Canada or their costs but what we can and must do for them, as though we're Social Worker to the World.

            The same Left that reviles Christianity and Christians turn themselves into pretzels to accommodate a barbaric ideology unchanged since an 8th century warlord invented it.

          • Your sound more and more like FoxNews there.

            I hate to be the one to have to tell you, but you should be happy that there is four center-left to left parties… for one right-wing party.

            Remove the NDP or the Bloc… and bam, Canada is ruled by the Liberal Party. The way the vote splt gives a very real advantage to the only right-wing party.

            You know, same as if the Tea Party protesters decided tomorrow to form a new political party. In a real sense, they'd likely be handing out the next election to Obama by dividing up the vote. If Wildrose goes nationwide and split up the vote further. You'll just have a left-wing coalition winning.

            Anyway, why do I bother telling you all this, You spew ignorance you believe to be wisdom. I wonder which warlord of the 8th century you are speaking of? The one I know is Charles Martel, he's very nice, we all wouldn't exist in the state we're in without him. Can't think of any other great warlord of the 8th century elseway, sorry. You're more the Glenn Beck kind, more about generic screed than substance.

    • Grant, I'm a frequent reader of English newspapers and magazines. The things I read in your media are often troubling. If only I collected comments found here, on the National Post, on misc CanWest publications… and in the Globe. I assure you, it's shocking and no, we're not all socialists, even the PQ just went center-right lately, seeing as the Province was deeply disillusioned with the Unions and the Public sector in general. I think BC is more left-wing than Quebec these days. The idiots who say their oil pay our services, fine. Get this one straight: WE HAVE OIL TOO! We have diamonds up north. We are suppose to build a new dam, export more electricity to the US. We wanted to open up a gold mine! We want to explore the north potential too. We keep showing up with great wealth creating projects and they keep being blocked by ecologists, by lobbies, by pressure groups… or by the federal government in the case of the oil in the St-Lawrence Gulf. It is frustrating, we use to build stuff here if your memory goes back to the 60's and 70's, that Province economy went up the way the one of Alberta is doing today. We have water we give away for free to foreign corporations. We do a lot of things wrong, we're stalling, but it's not like we don't have the potential to create as much wealth as Alberta, on the contrary. We're just hooked onto the wealth of yesteryears and we just can't seem to work as hard as we did two generations ago. They promise new projects, but nothing ever come true. Seriously, I'd much rather our Province was fully autonomous and didn't need any help from anyone else. There is 200 billions worth of oil we could extract… and it would be much cleaner than Albertan oil. Only, we can't cause they can't figure out who it belong to, between NB and QC. I wouldn't even mind we share it. But we have rois fainéants in power, we're stuck, there is no René Lévesque to rally the masses behind great projects.

      • Are you sure it's "you" who have all those diamonds and other resources in northern Quebec and not the Natives? Good luck with that and also the autonomous thing.

        • Actually you can search this story up.

          The diamonds up north are in No-Man's-Land, nowhere near any reservations, nowhere near anything.

          The ecologists oppose it because you'd need to… make new roads, build a new village… and as they said, diamonds are "useless". They reject this project, same as the new dam, out of consideration for the environment, nothing else.

          You know where in Québec the average wage is the highest. Open up Google Map and write "Fermont, Québec". People there earn above 100k, without a rent to pay (it's provided). We need more projects like those. Real wealth creating projects. But we're stuck in a system that find ways to block everything.

          In the 60's and 70's, people who built the hydroelectric dams were earning more than doctors in the city. They've worked hard in the middle of nowhere and we still rely on what they built to make our budget today.

          Robert Bourassa famously said that he wanted Québec to be the "Saudi-Arabia of Electricity". It could still be done. Imagine how wealthy this country as a whole would be if we created as much wealth here as Alberta does today. The problem is that we have corrupted rois fainéants. There is many young people who would love to work hard, finding meaningful employment, but the whole system seem designed to encourage this ridiculous notion that everyone can be working as office drones producing nothing. As the ecologists would say: it's unsustainable.

          • It's your socialism that's doing you in (and the ROC by extension). If by "office drones producing nothing" you mean an excessive number of government workers, that's one problem. But your province's fetish for unionization and excusing all its lazy practices is another problem. A news station did undercover filming of a road crew in Montreal that showed them shopping, sleeping etc., filling maybe one or two potholes in a workday. Socialist societies do not produce the dynamic vision and people you are talking about but French Canadians are wedded to their socialism and handouts subsidized by more productive workers in other provinces.

        • Minaka, we didn't have to bribe them to stay in Canada. We could have just said go. We can't blame all the people of Quebec because the federal government sent them special privilges. That was the fault of the Feds, if it wasn't a set-up, and any provinicial government can try the same.

          I'd like to remain friends with the people of Quebec even in the unlikely event that they did separate. That's also true of the Albertans. I live in Vancouver and don't particularly care for being governed from Ottawa either. I'd prefer local government. I don't want to be made to feel the fool because idiots in Ontario bar a woman from speaking. If these intellectually stifled bumbos in Ontario want to ban speakers, I don't want my name as a Canadian associated with it.

          Like Steyn, I'm with the people of Quebec on this one, just as I was with the people of Hérouxville. Agree or disagree, but at least they have the courage of their convictions, and I see little of that elsewhere except, of course, among the Muslims.

          • Sorry, you have as many "idiots" barring people from speaking as urban Ontario judging by your hyperactive Human Rights Commission. It was your HRC who tried Maclean's for the Mark Steyn article on Muslims. It's also the one persecuting an Ontario based stand up comedian on behalf of two Vancouver lesbians who wanted the right to heckle without being heckled back as well as other egregious examples of busybodiness given in Ezra Levant's book. And your entire education curriculum was turned over to two married gay men to tweak as they saw fit to make it gay friendly with opponents shut down (prevented from objecting).

            So people who understand what free speech is (it's not speech limited to politeness or promoting pet groups) have their job cut out for them in every province including Quebec, BC and Ontario. Maybe we can agree on that?

            Incidentally, one of the worst transgressors against free speech is academia and the students they indoctrinate. Canadian universities with few exceptions have become "islands of repression in a sea of freedom".

          • You're right, Minaka, we have our remarkably ignorant BC human rights commission as well, but the inspiration comes from the CHRC. If it was just the BCHRC perhaps we could have a chance at getting rid of this travesty but the source of all these hate speech ideas is in Ottawa. The Senate is useless and the elections are almost always decided before the votes in BC are even counted. I'd like more local power, the same as Quebec has.

            There is a kind of hopelessness in attempting any changes from the West, what with the control of the government being based in Ontario and Quebec. Canada is too large and unwieldy to be governed properly from Ontario. It should be realigned if we want to keep it together. I''d certainly support a separatist party here, and many Albertans feel the same.

      • "Seriously, I'd much rather our Province was fully autonomous and didn't need any help from anyone else".

        I'd agree to that for all the provinces, Joel. They should all have greater control than having the government in Ottawa making decisions that should be local.

        But as to Rene Levesque, I think he threw out the baby with the bathwater. They should have renamed Bloor Street in honour of Rene Levesque for sending all those Head Offices to Toronto.. Prior to that Montreal was booming, and I see little advantages gained in his English Only laws.

        Still, he was a man who dreamed big, who put his beloved province first, and i can admire that.

        • Good point Grant… But you know it had nothing to do with René Lévesque per say, the English businesses just went out as soon as he was elected. So in fact, they just didn't want him there, period.

          At the same time, since that election, many homegrown corporations were created, or became larger… and went global. SNC Lavalin is the largest engineering firm in the world. Bombardier remain one of the big players in mass transportation. The Cirque du Soleil was a René Lévesque government start-up. Couche Tard became the second largest franchise of convenience stores in the world (after 7/11). Our cinema, music, television, remain booming "industries" that are much healthier than the ROC. There's Jean Coutu, there's just so many things that worked well. The entreprising French businessmen took over the vaccum left by those who vacated the premises following the 1976 elections… Montreal was booming in the 70's in large parts due to René Lévesque involvement in provincial politics in the previous decade. Yes, he went on to socialise many things, to break the Anglo control of "everything". Not sure how else you could have broken that heritage without bullying the old "Rhodesians" a little (he used this term for some stubborn Anglos).

          So, you know, Toronto got the big banks and the big corporations of old age. The creativity that came as a result here wasn't really all that bad. Those who remained here never got a bad deal for doing so. If we had stayed a Province where the business owners, the bank owners, the commerce owners… were all Anglo, we'd still be in the same paradox we had been for 2 centuries prior. If we had done nothing, those who held power through the economy would never have let it go. I think, given the circumstances, René Lévesque done what he figured had to be done, so the people here would not keep on living as second-class citizens. It was necessary at the time, to break the cycle.

  43. Many of our new and growing social problems stem from small "l" liberalism. For example, girls are never encouraged or even told that motherhood and having children is honourable and necessary. Instaed they're encouraged to become enginerrs, NHL hockey players, university professors. Then one day they learn they're inferile-after age 26 a woman's ferility potential begins to slide. And the onces who aren't may have enough time to have one child. The result: Ontario now has 100 000 fewer elemntary students than in 2002. No kids, no teaching jobs for those ladies who have just graduated or are about to graduate from teachers college. In fact, they're being told to consider teaching outside of Canada.

    • Dieter, if you speak French, I have a song for you.

      It is the most popular song from Québec of the whole 2000's… and it is now often ranked in the top 10 best chansons of all time. It also was a big success abroad.

      The subject resume our era… and our forefathers. If you understand this song, you start to understand what Québec stand for, cause we keep playing this song over and over again. I will remind you in the aftermath of the war, some were predicting at the Provincial level that Canada would become French again, because we were having so much more babies than you did. My first ancestor had 16 kids in the XVIIth century, that is why today my family name is all over North-America and nowhere in France.

      How do you think we're still alive today and striving, our ancestors had babies by the dozen… Bill 101 was only a reaction to the fact we stopped having babies, so we couldn't count on that anymore. Millions of frenchmen fled to New England to find better employment and yet, the Province remained French, while we turned Boston into a Catholic city… with the Irish fleeing famine.

      This great story, you have it in this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ytELlzOWi8
      English translation of the song: http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread….

      "Your great great grandmother, she had 14 kids
      Your great grandmother had about as many
      Then your grandmother had three, that was enough for her
      Your mom didn't want any, you were an accident"

      • You should add a line to your song about the Muslim lady down the street having the 14 kids now, or the polygamous Muslim man who has 14 kids among his up to 4 wives, all on Welfare.

        Western countries subsidize harems for poor Muslim men, something not available in Muslim countries where only men who can support their wives and children can be polygamous.

        • At the same time, this same Welfare State is the thing that made it difficult to have children.

          It use to be, for our ancestors, that having kids made sense. They guaranteed you a "future", you would take care of them as they grew up and they'd take care of you as you'd grow older. Now, it's expensive, we've socialised ourselves from the cradle to the grave. No sense of community anymore.

          We also all moved to the city in crammed appartments (as this song have it) where the very idea of having a large family made no sense. This whole system encourage people to have 1 or 2 kids, or none at all. There is no real benefits to having children, they won't help you in your old age, cause they too will be busy paying for entitlements they can't afford. Now we even made having children an entitlement. I think we need to roll back some of this system and make it again a sensible, long term good investment to have children. It starts by the government removing themselves from the care given to the citizenry from the cradle to the grave. Return that responsability to the citizens themselves, they've done so for millenniums.

          Your stereotype about muslim gigantic families is not yet true of Canada I believe. It may be so in England and France, but we're not quite there yet. I didn't hear of any such care around here anyway.

          • That always sounds nice about people having children to take care of them when they're elderly……but it's not true. People had many children because agriculture was the name of the game, and why hire a crew of eight when you can reproduce? People had many children because many children also died; the age of modern medicine only begain in the 20th century. People were still dying from bronchitis for God's sake! People had many children because there was no birth control. People had many children because it was not a woman's choice how many children she would bear. It's incredibly naive to suggest thhat 18 year-old brides and grooms were that forward thinking about their future….

          • Second, demographics indicate an alarmingly fast escalation in the human population which has coincided with the Industrial Revolution and exploded during the age of Medicine and Technology (our generation). When people decry that Westerners aren't having kids anymore I think (a) they are hysterical and emotional; and (b) why the worry – are we building an army? People have stopped having loads of kids because it's their choice. Muslim women have loads of children – it isn't their choice. And isn't 9 billion people enough, especially considering 1/3 of the world doesn't have access to water? Why are we so preoccupied with exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet when millions of people can't even f*cking eat?

          • There are several polygamous Muslim families receiving social benefits in Toronto (as well as Britain and the Eurozone). It's likely you'd find the same pattern in the Quebec Muslim community if it were investigated and publicized. Government likes to keep these things on the quiet because otherwise citizens might get restless at finding out that Canadian law (against polygamous marriage) is giving way to sharia law in reality.

          • it's happening in a most interesting way here in Alberta. example from down the street:

            Muslim man married muslim woman, had 6 children with her.
            they divorced, still live together in same house, had 4 more children.
            same man also married girl (16 yrs old) brought to Canada from Saudi Arabia.
            has more children with her, while still having children with former (first) wife.

            so basically, he's married to both, but only legally married to the second female.
            who happens to be the same age as his eldest daughter.

            both women receive some form of social assistance, etc., and to the best of my knowledge they all live in the same house. it is teeming with people! I have no idea where they all sleep!

            this is how polygamy works in Canada.

  44. After 100 years or so, Quebec, whose provincial government published anti-Semitic propaganda in WWII, now realizes that the real threat is from Muslims and not from the Jews. Good for Quebec for standing up to Islamic separatism, but perhaps the Muslims were sent as Karma for their previous ill-treatment of Jewish Quebecers.

    • revisionist, you are still using the cheap shot of our former anti-Semitism. That's a gutless lie.

      Let me make this perfectly simple for you. When Duplessis was in power, we were extremely reactionary, you cannot take that era and make it all about our character, it is unfair and it is stupid. You are the true revisionist here, we know what we done, we had a soft-dictator, but remember who HE was working for. He was a Roi-Nègre for the Anglo power holdings over the Province. He was not elected, he cheated elections continually. We never had a dictator, but that was as close to one as we got. Stupid Conrad Black (friend of Mark Steyn) never can get this through his thick skull. I do not accept your conclusion at all.

      To be honest, we didn't hate just Jews, we hated WASP, we hated everyone except maybe Irishmen cause they were Catholics. Understand this, there is no common measure between the Duplessis era and what came thereafter. Nowadays, I'd say my Province is less anti-Semitic than those insane motherf***kers at Uni of Western Ontario. Historically, the Jews went against the Catholics and sided with the Protestants, that's just a fact. The hatred was shared. So stop playing this card, cause I'm a Zionist. If we have some skeletons, they are hidden under other skeletons you just omit to mention. When our Jews speak French as the Jews in France does, we'll get even more easily along with them. Want an example of such an evolution. The son of Leonard Cohen sing in French. His disciple, Rufus Wainwright, sing and speak in french impeccably. See, that is progress. We joined the world, which we had been walled out from. We need no lesson from English-Canada on tolerance. There was never any pogroms here, never any serious persecution of Jews, we were just segregated, that's it. Today, I'm actually certain Jews are more safe in Montreal than in Toronto with their 5% Muslim population. They will come back and understand, we are their friends, not their foe. And you'll keep crying us a river about old, revisionist history you keep writing, the one that keep making you the “good guy”. This is exactly what I was talking about, you're an ignorant fool that rehash the National Post lies, you understand nothing.

      • Don't forget the University of York, which is a hotbed of anti-Semitism. An educated young man has been charged with inciting hate speech on his blog against Jews, which he called pigs (a common meme amongst the Islamic extremists). Also, in the past couple years anti-Semitism has climbed to the top of the hate crimes list. In an unrelated story, Muslims have flooded Canadian borders in the past couple years as well.

    • What is it you want to hear: that Québec has sinned 70-100 years ago against the Jews ? Only Québec in Canada ? In what way ? More and differently than many countries of this world ? or even parts of Canada ? At that time of history ? Things said are worst than thoughs and hidden and hypocritical actions ? What about the white anglo establishment of Canada ? Purity in it's sense of superiority over humanity at that same time in history ? Many Jews have prospered in Québec, with the help of Québécers (their money).
      Reread Joël Cuerrier's comments and reflect on it. That I know, Quebec has never sent Jews to their death camps? Shame on you !

      • Also, while we objected the conscription… it is still a fact 20% of the forces during WW2 were French. The Canadian Army that landed in Normandy was also our sacrifice, no matter the politics of the days.

        We were there for WW1, we were there for the very unfair Boer Wars, that's how it came to be. We were tired of being the meat shield for the British Empire. It's easy to make us the bigots here, but there was more at play than just our anti-Semitism. We only did not enjoy fighting for a country where we were, for all that matter, second-class citizens.

  45. "Not because of its risible separatist movement, for which the only rational explanation is that it was never anything but one almighty bluff for shakedown purposes."

    Seriously? Nothing else then an "almighty bluff for shakedown purposes"?

    There is no doubt that you know an understand Quebec way more than yours collegue from the Globe … (sarcasm)

    • I'll continue to say that, while I want Quebec in Canada, if they really want to leave, let us all vote on it. Unless of course, Mark is right.

      • If Québec becomes a country one day, it won't be a vote, it will be a civil war. 1980 and 1995 would not have made us a country anyway. It would have made us a country in the same sense as Puerto Rico is a country.

        Anyway, this question is off the table anyway, stop making it about this. I'd say it's more likely Alberta leave the federation than Québec these days.

        • I concur with your assessment of Alberta. But I think Steyn is partially right as to the "soft separatists" and the real reason we see Bloc MPs in Ottawa: for them, it IS just a big shakedown. (The hard-core separatists are playing for real; they just aren't playing with a full deck.)

        • Quebec separatist leaders were willing to start a new country with a vote of 50% plus one, in other words a populace split exactly down the middle. Is that what you mean by civil war?

  46. "way to go mes habitant! The day we stop giving into the most intolerant, backward religion of our times is the day I have hope for this left wing mush of a country. "

    As the most socialist province following the proclivities of the French for statism, Quebec has been the tail wagging the Canadian dog always in the left direction into socialist mush.

    Now for once Quebeckers find a group (supremacist Muslims) that's a more realistic threat to their culture than the bogeyman of English speaking Canada that has actually been their biggest (foolishly) benefactor.

    Quebec is in fact the only province that can get away with this blatant "intolerance of the intolerant" as they are allowed to thumb their nose to anyone and everyone whereas an English speaking province would be drawn and quartered for doing the same, e.g. private medical clinics are allowed in Quebec by the frightened feds whereas other provinces get threatened with withdrawal of federal transfers. Quebec is always the favored child that gets to do and say what he feels like without the constraints on the rest of us. For once this may benefit Canada as a whole.

    • Ah, yes yes, you read the National Post a lot I seen, you've learned it all by heart.

      Just so it's clear, the so-called socialists of the PQ just went through a shift to the right. You think no one is fed up with corrupt unions and oversized public sector. If this federation is to work out, stop making it about the old hat lies you're being fed.

      The "people" of Québec are against statism mostly. The political parties are just starting to get it. To understand they can be elected by shifting more to the right. Won't happen in a day, but it will come to that. It's hard to unmake all that was done and there is no Thatcher in sight.

      • I read four newspapers, one non-English on a regular basis if you're interested in my reading habits. With a family member living in Quebec, there's plenty of opportunity to see firsthand what's going on there.

        And what do you read to think that Quebec is moving away from socialism…your own wishes? From your mouth to God's ears in that case.

    • "Quebec is always the favored child that gets to do and say what he feels like without the constraints on the rest of us"

      That's because Quebec has the balls while the ROC has no idea what they stand for. We're being identified as a group who can't even let a 100 lb. blonde woman make a speech. That's how gutless we are.

      In fact a few years ago a Federal Minister said that Canadians don't even have a culture, which is why we have to import it. If more culture is what we want, I suggest we begin importing it via Latin America rather than from Islamic countries.

      But Quebec has no such worries about their culture, and are prepared to protect what they have. Good for them!

      • Not exactly what I said.

        What I meant was that, if ever there is a successful terrorist attack on Québec or Ontario, it is pretty obvious it won’t be Burka-wearing women, but their husbands or their male kids. The only place where there is women terrorists/kamikazes is in the Palestinian territories.

        There is two things here: One issue is about identity and culture. The other is about national security. Both matters, but it is more urgent in the present tense to focus on the later. We’ve been lucky so far, but if there is one thing that is clear from the past decade, it is that it can happen anywhere.

  47. I agree with all of your comment except for the belief that Muslim women are "not the problem" and are forced by men to mummify themselves. This is only true of some Muslim women and the proof is seeing them expose their faces at least to sunlight when they are given the opportunity as in Afghanistan now.

    Many if not most Muslim women in the West who not only wear the full body bag but push for drivers' licenses, voting etc. in that get up are what Bin Laden's second in command al Zawahiri called "soldiers for Islam" serving in their own way to psychologically browbeat natives of the countries they are colonizing. Some of the more honest among them are on record as saying they wear their disguises to be "provocative". Of course, when they succeed in provoking any reaction other than 100% approval of their flaunting of Western etiquette, they play it to the hilt, with left wing media and libs enabling them and the demand for money follows, in the form of personal payment and/or public expense like footbaths or the like.

    • Yes, it is a neat little package to wrap women in, that being that they are innately weak and subject to control. Muslim men are controlling, that is factual, but many, many women wear any one of those costumes as a way to say "Hey, I am holy. I am not with you, I am with them!" It's very much a choice, although a choice borne of sickening brainwashing.

  48. Kudos to Steyn and to the the author of the French article Lagace, which BTW means "the annoyed".

    • Lagacé use to be an annoying populist when he was a little younger… but he's growing up to be one of the more decent pundit in the Province.

  49. Hilarious, I call it!

  50. Why can't we wheel our deceased loved ones
    around in 'there' COFFIN ?

    • WHAT???

  51. your loved one wheeled around in a COFFIN
    at least their not BURIED ALIVE

  52. There's an underlying issue here which might be even more important than the question of whether one can go about masked in Canada as a matter of course. It's this: why should any immigrant be accepted here, who does not already speak conversational English or French? Given that the global pool of potential Canadians already fluent in our languages numbers in the hundreds of millions, why should we settle even *one* newcomer who is is provably unable or unwilling to join our society in the most elementary way — by speaking to us? And why, even if you think the intake of millions of people who can't order soup or read traffic signs is wise policy, should Canadian taxpayers spend one red cent on interpretation, translation and/or language classes for newcomers? Why should Canada have an immigration policy, or immigration at all, if it doesn't in fact benefit our nation? Why should I have to pay the Naema Ahmeds of this world to become Canadian? Never mind the niqab, or "reasonable accomodation" — the real bollocks is the notion that the Dominion's immigration system should be designed for the benefit of immigrants, and that Canadians should pay (and pay, and pay) for it.

    • Good question, that's where we in Québec have a law you don't. We encourage mostly migrants from french countries,,, or from places where French is widely understood (any countries with a latin background, any old French colonies, etc). The problem remain that going by that, we're still getting mostly people from Morrocco and Algeria these days.

      Anyway, it's got all to do with refugee status. As I said, I'd have no problem we take in immigrants from Sudan as refugees. If they are Christians or Animists, not if they are Muslims. The logic behind that one is quite obvious.

    • You do realize that courts in Toronto have interpreters ON STAFF every single working day of the week? And also that it is reason for, how po an acquittal if someone is arrested without being informed of their rights in their language of origin? I encourage everyone to drop into a downtown courthouse and see just how selective our immigration officials are porous and circumventable our borders remain, and also how illegal immigrants committing crimes in a country that have no status in are afforded the exact same rights (and more) as a Canadian citizen. Observe persons identified as being illegally in the country being granted bail because our laws state not having status in Canada is not a reason for detention. Observe illegals being given probation orders that they, as non-citizens, have no legal obligation to uphold instead of being booted out of the country the came from. Canada just simply does not care about its working class citizens. When you see every single day people who cannot or refuse to learn English (which is free here, TTC tokens included), collect welfare and demand the judge let them out before the 31st so they can cash their handout cheque, you will just hang your head in shame at what we've become.

  53. The immigrant trains are already loaded in Montreal’s Central Station – headed for those islands of freedom where the right to repress is not oppressed: Toronto and Ottawa.

  54. "Canada is a French country too, in equal part as it is English".

    Talk about living in the far past and the French habit of self aggrandizement. Get over yourself. French speakers concentrated in Quebec have dropped to below a quarter of Canadians. You are a tail wagging the dog too often but those days of arrogance are ending. Why do you think separatism has died down? Because you know that one more such threat and the ROC won't be trying to woo you back. You've played that bluff too many times. In fact, if there were ever an honest accounting of how much more money Quebec takes out of confederation than it has ever put in, you would be encouraged to leave and take your expensive ways with you. The rather abrasive gallic "charm" is not worth the steep price.

    As for pretending that you have been a Canadian entity culturally independent of France, Quebecois have been slavishly interested in the "Mother Country" who gave you the back of her hand for Guadeloupe and Martinique! To this day you read newspapers and watch television from France like the colonists you are at heart. In fact, your anti-burka attitude and legislation is a direct import from France (not that there's anything wrong with that particular policy).

    By the way, you are no expert on Anglos. Those immigrants who are English speaking without a British background who assimilated and 5th generation English speaking Canadians felt and acted Canadian long before 1960. They fought two wars as Canadians whereas what you term French Canadians have acted more as French (e.g. refusing conscription) being incredibly chauvinist and provincial. Quebeckers don't call themselves or behave like Canadians except when it comes to raiding the family wallet.

    • I'm sorry but you definately do not know your history and your tone is full of anger rather than rationale.
      Do your research, because what your saying here is not helping the debate. Joel is right, everything he is saying and it is only the tip of the iceberg.

      • I'm sorry but your mere opinion does not count as a rebuttal of the facts I gave in the above comment nor any support for Joel's ludicrous notion that Anglo Canadians did not become Canadian until 50 years ago and that French Canadians, the ones who have been threatening to leave Canada for decades are "more Canadian". They are Quebeckers and French first and foremost and Canadians last until it's time to line up for subsidies. Name one thing French Canadians have done to promote Canada and Canadian values at home or abroad. Instead they keep sending the Bloc heads to Ottawa with the express purpose of breaking up Canada. That hardly seems "Canadian".

        As for tip of the iceberg, do YOUR research on how much more Quebec has received financially from Confederation than contributed and you'll find that what I've mentioned is just a fraction. Quebec has taken far more in federal funds for immigration settlement than actual immigrants, and more than its share by population of arts, sports subsidies you name it. If Quebec's total monetary haul were ever honestly published, you'd see a wave of anger at how the ROC has been drained to keep a province that has never been happy or proud to be Canadian in a manner that it cannot afford on its own.

        I don't expect a substantive answer from you or Joel who did the same patronization act below to disguise the ability of either of you to refute my points.

        • “Name one thing French Canadians have done to promote Canada and Canadian values at home or abroad.”

          Right back at you brother. Why do you think many people abroad come to think of Canada as a French country? Because as it is perceived, for anyone who is paying attention, so much is coming out of Montreal that it can be seen as such.

          Because we do help define what the Canadian values and identity and culture is, you see. That is something very important. Culturally, Montréal have become a great meaningful exporter. Those values and this culture is continually reinvented and reinterpreted, they are not your exclusive copyright.

          It is ok to compete for defining the culture and values, but you need to define them too. You don’t do that with diplomats and journalists, you do it with a wide range of instruments.

          You are not understanding what you are saying correctly. What you mean is not exporting Canadian values, but your concept, very limited idea, of what Canadian values are. If there’s one thing you won’t deny, it is that, as far as exposing and exporting Canadian culture, values, artistic sense and sensibility, etc… Québec have been leading the onslaught for many decades. If it wasn’t for Québec, Canada would certainly not have as rich a presence on the world stage. And I mean it in both languages too. Cause Montreal also have a very rich Anglo culture that no one would deny.

          It is also clear to me that, if you ask 100 persons around the world where Ontario, Alberta or British-Columbia is, they mostly wouldn’t know. But ask them where Québec is… and they will. There is a reason for this, which is crucial to this debate. If you reject “Canadian values” as having any common measure with Québec values… what is it you’ll call Canadian then? Tim Horton and Nickelback? I don’t mean to insult, but I am saying both sides are important if you want to say Canadian culture is rich and diverse. The cultural impact, driven by a struggle for survival, is one of the key aspect of Québec and what it does bring to Canada. It’s not just about silly rock bands, but real culture.

          So yes, as a way for someone who live in Europe or Asia, the US or Africa, to learn and understand what Canada is, Québec does bring a sense of that to the rest of the world. Like it or not, that’s important… and you won’t ever find much to disparage Canada as a nation in any of this culture. Very skewed vision, once again. In reality, it is mostly Canada who keep despising Québec, while the opposite is only peripheral to the actual debate within Québec society. We don’t have anything against English-Canada… the problem is, I’d trust more a guy in Britain, France or Texas to know about Québec culture… than a guy in British-Columbia… and that’s really sad. If you don’t know it, of course you can’t recognize it as your own. The Minister Of Culture of Canada could not even name who own the Cirque du Soleil or who made the Image Mill for Québec’s 400th anniversary. It would be sad, if it was surprising at all. Truth remain, the British Minister of Culture would most likely know the answer and that’s the problem. Canada never can reconcile that Quebec is part of Canada… and so ignore everything about its culture. Ask yourself, who’s excluding who in the end.

          • The person excluding in this thread is you, the person who aggrandizes the steadily diminishing French role in Canada (insisting the malcontents constantly threatening to leave are the real Canadians LOL) while insulting Anglo Canadians with a ridiculous stance that they only became Canadian 50 years ago.

            There's no evidence for your claim that many people abroad think of Quebec first when they think of Canada. Those that do know it as the squeaky wheel. I travel my fair share and even in France, no native asks about Quebec. Just as in the days of choosing Guadaloupe and Martinique, they still don't care, Dommage.

            Quebec and its socialism are the outrider, not representative of Canada in anyone's mind but yours. Its socialism is an unearned luxury subsidized by the non socialist provinces so it's not a leader on this issue since a leader gets where he's going on his own steam.

            By the way, Cirque de Soleil is not a universal taste. If you've seen one of their shows, you've seen them all. You may as well claim Celine Dion is how Quebec has done something for Canada abroad.

            The latest thing Quebec did not "for" but "to" Canada was go to Copenhagen and hypocritically trash Alberta its personal milk cow and the federal government.

    • My great-grandmother was from Manitoba! Guess why they came back with my grandmother to Québec? There is many reasons why, none of them are exactly glorious.

      How else do you think BC no longer speak French, but by banning the teaching of this language? You do this long enough and it will eventually become effective.

      When Louis Riel was hung, it was not just him that was, it was a long lineage of French, Métis, Catholic presence in the region that slowly were vanquished. Even Michael Ignatieff now admit that was a big mistake. Riel may have been a raving lunatic, but his execution was the beginning of the end of the French presence through out Western Canada. I’m not so sure it was for the best, but I guess it made sense then.

      The concentration of the French population in Québec was not a choice, it was much like the Trail of Tears, the only option, the only possible outcome.

      Anyway, if I’m hearing you right, the purge of the French population of Canada have not went far enough already… and because it is now low enough, you can start saying we’re insignificant. That’s a rather obtuse point, don’t you think. Like the hundred of millions of Muslims who complain that ALL of their problems are to be blamed on the 6 million Jews of Israel. You know, we’re easy scapegoats too, but who do you think hold the “weak” end of the stick here? I wouldn’t bet on “Canadian” culture represented by Michael J Fox and William Shatner as the Olympics had it. In reality, I’m all for bi-culturalism, so long as each side recognize the other. If we’re only counting Canadian of English ancestry, I’m sure your percentage is not so much different than those of French ancestry. So it’s a silly argument either way. The language is the important factor and the survival of my own is crucial. It makes a whole lot of sense for Canada as a whole too, if you’d just stop thinking about the greater ramifications it implies.

      Either way, the low fertility rate is not only our problem. It’s Coast to Coast Canada’s problem. So, it’s quite vain to quibble about the small details here. The reasons why French population live mostly in Québec should be well known to you, but I believe it is not, cause you take it as “nationalistic” self-aggrandizement on the part of the québécois. Remember, the patriotism for Canada as a country was mostly French from 1763 to 1963 (give or take)… then we just transferred it to patriotism for Québec, because Canada became more and more exclusive in it’s identity, Danny Williams being just the very last Orangeman that we have to ridicule for the Newfie wanker that he is. Maybe like the British flag evolved through time (to include Scottish and Irish symbols), they’ll be a day when the Canadian flag have a blue portion. By then, I’m sure we can burn down both the Québec and Ontario flags (they are wholly worthless and unrepresentative). Same for BC too… and rename British-Columbia to something that make some sense, it’s a ridiculous name for a Province. So, am I a radical or just a realist? The Canadian identity was fabricated by this conflict between Franco and Anglo through out it’s history. Continuing on this path is vain. We are not like Ireland. You are not like England. There’s better to do in the second largest country on earth… than to keep this ridiculous conflict going; which is not helping you in any meaningful way.

  55. I believe in multiculturalism and freedom of religion. As a woman I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE NIQAB or any other variation of it. It is not a religious symbol, it is a oppressive symbol…and I agree 100% with Quebec on this one.

    • How do you know the niqab is an oppressive symbol? Women may choose to wear it out of their own volition, and in some cases it isn't imposed by men. Only a handful of women actually wear the niqab and to turn it into such a huge issue is laughable. Islam is not a homogenous religion – many identities exist within it and to ignore them is not only incredibly ignorant but silences Muslim women's agency. What's oppressive is not a piece of cloth but people's hugely ignorant perceptions about it

  56. Wearing the viel is acceptable for ugly protesters of Ann Colter.

    • I agree with you Bill ! I am also of the opinion that the niqab is being sent to our streets to provoke reactions from the people and stir up everything while we are being thus slowly brought to accept the veil, as more "acceptable", less covering, " more innocent". Notice that the hijab (muslim veil) as many forms, more or less covering the head and face. More covering : like Mehr Ahrar's wife, you remember the guy that got over $ 10,000.000.00 from our income tax money ?

  57. I'm having a terrible time trying to teach my son to make R sounds, I need to stop him from moving his mouth. I need to see it!

    There is no way taxpayers should pay for this course to start with. You want to come here you learn to be Canadian at your expense.

    This is just another new and improved canadian saying we should jump and the left asking if it was high enough to keep them happy.

    Being a lower Caste Canadian, I don't get rights in this country why should I care if she gets them?

  58. I agree with your point about ROC history books not actually reflecting much of history at all. If my reading of history extended only to what I learned in high school, I'd have been hard pressed to pass a citizenship test that immigrants take.

    But what I hear from your extensive "identity" debate is that the French are more Canadian than English Canadians because they have a more extensive history of being "Canadian". That's something that appalls me, and here's why:
    -Canadian identity can't afford to be a pissing contest, lest we piss it all away.
    -Historical measurement of identity without acknowledgement of the current sociopolitical context is like a pain au chocolat without the chocolat.
    -Many in Quebec now identify first as Quebeckers (or Quebecois, if you prefer), and second (if at all) Canadian. Comparably, Anglo/English Canadians have come to increasingly define themselves as Canadian first, and something else (whether by heritage or by province) second.
    -Quebec is the ONLY province in Canada to have held referenda on secession from this country.
    continued…

  59. …continued from above.
    -As I recall, it was a Scotsman, who, upon coming to what was then British North America, decided that this country needed to be united as an effort to prevent annexation by the Americans.
    -Loyalists and Saxons ran from the Americans during the revolution, and slowly came to realize that the British weren't going to just hop on a boat and come save them in 1812, they weren't effectively managing trade with native peoples, and they weren't able to govern effectively across a 6,000km pond. They didn't want to throw away the identity of where they came from (being wary of the American model), but at the same time, felt the need to recognize that they had become something new.

    So yes, the French roots of the Quebecois, and the Canadian history that this entails, date back farther than most Anglophone history in Canada. But I don't think either group has exclusive rights on who is more "Canadian". Both groups have contributed a great deal to what this nation is today, and that's worth recognizing.

  60. When this story broke if was clear that the teacher had tried to work with Ms. Ahmed. Also, Ms. Ahmed ahd initially agreed to remove her niqab for certain exercises and then changed her mind.
    These classes are offered for free or minimum charge, and are attended by new immigrants from all over the world. If Ms. Ahmed did not want to cooperate she should have left the class and found herself an alternate option or a private teacher.
    I'm with Mark Steyn!

  61. Except that our national policy of multiculturalism tells immigrants to do just the opposite and keep their culture and traditions. All accomodations will be met. There's a mint on your pillow and a shower cap in your bathroom. Have a pleasant stay.

    • Lazy liberals use the word bigot a lot as in "person you disagree with and whose facts that threaten your illusions you can't refute".

      As more people realize this, the word is losing its power to shut down discussion of facts unpalatable to liberals.

      • It's akin to labelling every reviled person you encounter a Nazi or being offended by someone of another ethnicity and calling racism. The words lose their meaning, and that is a sad thing.

      • What I hate even more is the fact the term Liberal is used to mean anything that isn't Liberal. Maybe one day we will correct the mistake and realize that Wilson Woodrow Democratic Party was a sham.

        Democrats use to be the "Conservatives" in the US, that's why they are Blue and Republicans are Red. At least Canada don't have this colorful confusion. If you ever watch a map of the voting trends, you will notice the North was voting Republican until Wilson while the South voted Democrat. But then the Progressives came along and took over the Democratic Party. It started with Wilson, got worst with FDR and worst still with LBJ. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican of course and he was mostly voted in by the North.

        Ever since what we call Liberal… is not Liberal at all, neither in Canada nor in the US, it's a veil for everything that isn't Liberal.

        Australia still got it right. The Liberal Party there is the opponent of the Labour party. That's a decent distinction. For Europe too, Political Liberalism have nothing to do with what "liberalism" is in the US and Canada, which have nothing to do with Enlightenment philosophy anymore.

        However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the word bigot. It's definition haven't changed for centuries. People can use it for the wrong reasons, but it's still a perfectly well defined word. Of course, you could despise this word because of it's origins, who knows?

        "Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite.""

    • Oh that's right your part of Marion Boyd's team. Just thought i'd let you know

    • If there are bigots anywhere, EugeneForseyLiberal , why not confront them with facts rather than just snipe from a distance?

      Either make your case or move on.

      • "Either make your case or move on".

        The leftist way is name calling and moving on. Elementary school grounds are full of the same mentality.

  62. There have been several empirical studies of immigration and none, none, have found a meaningful benefit to the receiving population. In the US around 15 years ago, the estimate was $10 billion, tops, out of a 4 trillion dollar economy. A rounding error, in other words. Why changing your culture, constraining your traditions, for 10 cents a day?

    • "Why changing your culture, constraining your traditions, for 10 cents a day?"

      Exactly, Mitch. We need only look at Europe to see what's happened there and ask ourselves why we would ever want to go down that same path here.

      There were 14 terrorist plots broken up in Canada last year alone and we should be asking ourselves whether it's worth the risk to the Canadian people to add yet another colour to our multicultural rainbow. As well, do we really want further cultural wars in Canada?

      The answer to that question would probably find agreement between the people of Quebec and the ROC.

      • Right on Grant.

    • Too few people know the truth on immigration to the West, that for the past two decades, it's been run to benefit the immigrants, not the receiving countries.

      Too many still believe the antiquated notion that any kind of immigration is good for Canada and other developed countries without any knowledge of the cost benefit ratio. The costs (crowding of cities, education of illiterates, health care, Welfare and crime) now outweigh the benefits. Not just the lax refugee program but the general immigration program is a Social Work program for the World. But politicians look on new immigrants as a source of votes.

      Do the math. A young couple can bring both sets of grandparents here under the family reunification program. That couple even if both are working will never cover the costs to other taxpayers of their 4 elderly parents who have not contributed a penny of taxes to Canada. That's one of the reasons for long health care line ups – many more people claiming than ever paid into the system.

      • minaka

        Go check Japan… it is an interesting example of an un-diverse country. What is it, 98.4% Japanese with a few Koreans and Chinese making up most of the rest. That’s as far as their multiculturalism go.

        Now of course, Mark Steyn warn they will all disappear because of collapsing fertility rate. Which is a bit silly, considering Japan is hugely overpopulated as it is and could use a drop of population (unlike, say, Norway or Canada, that are very much underpopulated). As far as Japanese culture, unless someone decide to go to war and conquer them, it’s not going anywhere. I wouldn’t really worry about their economy either, they are very resilient and will bounce back whatever may hit them while the population is reduced by… half?

  63. I'm quebecer and appreciate the quality of the debate here. So glad our divide being mostly on the linguistic (intellectual) level, compared to those bloody religious (irrational) conflicts that plague so many parts of the world.

    Extolments to Mr. Steyn

  64. Quebec just got a taste of what they,ve been doing to the ROC— don,t forget FLQ terrorists —-but I do agree with the ban, must be a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend

    • You’re very silly mister.

      The FLQ is long gone, it have nothing to do with Québec today.

      Would you accuse those damn black people in the US of what the Black Panthers did? Cause that is very much the same thing, you generalize one group of radicals and call it “Québec”. Now get over yourself you ignorant twerp. The FLQ was a far-left terrorist group bent not on the independence of the Province as much as in turning us into Cuba.

      It also did not do much to the ROC! It acted within the Province itself.

    • The FLQ terrorists were only a minuscule portion of the Quebec population, Sage, and did nothing to the ROC. They only harmed the people of Quebec.

    • No 1
      Sage, your comment and yourself are very stupid and shameful. Just like the comment of "revisionist" 1 day ago.

      Maybe when people like you part of the ROC realize that Québec, who has a strong identity noone disputes, and where numerous citizens developed, fought for and loved this « country » that they called Canada (read Joël Cuerrier's many comments here to understand what I am saying) , before they were forced to reduce their love to a more limited part of the territory on the basis of hundreds of years of injustices and a certain exploitation, so maybe If you stop treating Québécois like a sort of ennemy to Canada, a lot of things would improve. To follow….

    • No 2 Sage,
      I modestly feel, in the present subject, that Québec can be seen as a sort of a defense or a scout exposing radical islamism in Canada. And you should realize at the same time that it could be good for Canadians who love this country (including Jews) to join in the resistance and fight with, not against, Québec the growing subtle (and not so subtle) attacks on the Western Occidental values in our own country. There is absolutely no ambiguity with radical islamism : they hate the West, they are willing to kill and be killed, and they are abundantly funded. And they are within our walls, the doors being open to them by all sorts of means, and they even slowly are putting their foot in our Institutions.
      Only innocent and careless citizens do not see that, many of which are the products of the Trudeau multiculti soup ideology. To follow…

    • No 3 and end . Sage:
      The muslim veil (hijab and all sorts of variety) is more and more present in our streets and the niqab and burka were brought in to have us react and then accept the veil (as acceptable and innocent and so much less covering than a walking tent). But these muslim signs are only a first line of attack. There are real problems in mosks, on the internet, and so on. So unity amongst us would be better than continuing the eternal same accusations against Québec.
      Don't you remember the love-in session in Montréal before the 1995 referendum ? Some have believed that Canadians really « loved us very much ».

  65. Steyn is wrong in making this an issue of the dreaded group rights when in reality it is an issue of individual rights. The individual rights of Mme Ahmed's being violated by telling her what she should wear. This is what people who support individual rights call and arbitrary imposition on a person by the state. This is collective rights against individual rights and can lead to the slippery slope of then allowing the state to intrude in our lives in any arbitrary way they want. Arbitrariness then is the issue here and how it is seen as culturally OK to tell women what to wear when we're dealing with immigrants from traditional countries. This leads to a double standard, because of course such discrimination is blind to the type of oppression that our own culture imposes on women: how about starting to ban painful boob jobs and high heels in public spaces?

    • Monica Sanchez, you are overstating the case for individual rights as far as dress codes are concerned. Canadian society, as well as in other areas of the world, has always had dress codes, written and unwritten. For example, this woman would not be allowed, or certainly discouraged, from wearing a bathing suit to class, or a clown costume, or any number of other outfits that might be disruptive to the class as a whole. And it has been pointed out in the article that this shroud-like covering is only a recent phenomenon and not part of any long time religious code.

      You also ignore the fact that she wanted no males in her line of vision and that she was accommodated for several months prior to her pushing the issue too far.

      Boob jobs and high heels are generally not disruptive to any classroom and it's doubtful that women with these added features would want men out of their line of vision anyway.

    • The issue is not what she was wearing. No one cares. It is the fact that she made it impossible for the teacher to teach and was disruptive in class. Many critics of what happened seem to ignore the fact that the school spent months trying to accommodate her.

      One can't teach a spoken language without being able to see the mouth of the student. Moreover, the refusal to talk to other students made it impossible for the teacher to engage students in a dialogue, a necessary part of language instruction. The lady in question does not have an automatic right to demand individual instruction paid by taxpayers. She always has the option to hire a private instructor.

    • There is no ban being proposed. Why are people misconstruing the facts and jumping into hysterical hyperbole about what could be next? This bill simply and clearly states people who want to receive public services must reveal their faces upon request. You are free to wear a niqab any and everywhere you want — you must simply lift it in order to be identified. What is difficult to understand about that? And what is unreasonable about it?

    • The issue is not what she was wearing. No one cares. It is the fact that she made it impossible for the teacher to teach and was disruptive in class. Many critics of what happened seem to ignore the fact that the school spent months trying to accommodate her.

      One can't teach a spoken language without being able to see the mouth of the student. Moreover, the refusal to talk to other students made it impossible for the teacher to engage students in a dialogue, a necessary part of language instruction. The lady in question does not have an automatic right to demand individual instruction paid by taxpayers. She always has the option to hire a private instructor.

  66. Individual rights also include the right to fail. Mme Ahmed also has the right to fail in her French class and be left alone!

    • Championing the right to fail. You sure have picked a noble cause, Monica Sanchez. I see you really do care about Ahmed's ability to succeed in this country.

  67. If that's why she was kicked out then yes, it's reasonable. That's not the case Steyn made in the article though.

  68. Joel, you are making the ongoing error that it's all about French and English when in fact there were many other people involved. That would include mine, the Vikings, who were here long before the French or the English.

    There were Ukrainians, Poles, Germans Scots and Irish. There were Dutch, Norwegians , Swedes, Italians and of course our native Indians. Certainly the pageantry and pomp were all English but the majority of Canadian people identified with the English as much as the French did. And, like it or not, we were an English colony, all of us.

    The French didn't 'give' the United States anything, by the way. The land was bought and paid for through the Louisiana purchase in order that Napoleon could finance his European wars. Many what ifs surround that part of our history.

  69. Canadians have let themselves become pawns in this immigration game. I agree with most of the comments, if you are not happy with the rules & regulations in Canada, please find a Muslim country that will accomodate you. I'm not a Francophone, but, BRAVO Quebec!! for standing up to these people.

  70. Oh good. In Afghanistan, we're supposedly fighting to free the Muslim women from the oppressive Taliban rule, so they can leave their homes & participate in public life. In Quebec, we're forcing Muslim women to be imprisoned in their homes, so they cannot participate in public life.
    Maybe not the best move.
    I do see both sides and am torn about this issue. I suggest someone ask the women themselves what they think about this & about Quebec's concerns re identification. Is there a compromise possible?

    • "we're supposedly fighting to free the Muslim women from the oppressive Taliban rule"

      Is that what you were told? In fact that is just one of the reasons.

      "In Quebec, we're forcing Muslim women to be imprisoned in their homes, so they cannot participate in public life".

      Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever? At the very least you can supply a link to support this wacky comment!

      • Interesting rebuttal Grant, but no candy for you.

        I can also pretend to be a Viking. In many ways, Québec history goes back to the shores of old Normandy, a land that was hugely influenced by the Viking invasion of the IXth century. That then invaded England in the XIth. So we have a common background through this, we’re all freakin’ Vikings in part. I will not argue the role of the Germans and Irishmen that came later in the game. Significant, but they have nothing on Henry Hudson and Cavelier de La Salle if you know what I mean. Even less the role (very insignificant and tepid) of the Vikings. Great civilization, but they’re gone, kaput. If you want something close to them, you got to be in Iceland, the only piece of real estate they could hold on to, barely. Since the Danes conquered Scandinavia in the end (if I’m not confusing too many things here).

        I do accept the major significance of the Scots and Irish of Canada in particular. I’d even say they are together more significant than the English in a way. Which is why I find the flag and symbols of Ontario somewhat offensives. However, Québec flag is also very offensive to anything we could call a notion of biculturalism.

        But indeed, it is all about Franco and Anglo. Other groups are very much secondary in this math. I mean, Montreal is 13% Italian or so, would you consider Montreal to be an Italian city? There is actually more Italians than English or Irish people here.

        As for your assumptions about the French not giving anything to the US, this is insanely wrong.

        First, the American Revolution is, in the details of it, the only war that was won where most battles were lost. They can tell tales about the great victories of the battles. If you’re just forgetting the role of the French Navy, or the role of La Fayette, or the role of the Haitian slaves fighting with the revolutionaries, or all of the weaponry and money provided by France to piss off England, you’ve missed out on a lot of details. The Freemasons behind those revolutions did so in France, period.

        As for the sale of Louisiana, it was a big mistake to finance Napoleon’s war of conquest, that he ended losing at Waterloo anyway. I told you I am much in favor of the British Empire, cause they done things right, where the French Empire done it all wrong. Even the American Revolution was a much greater success than the continually failing French Revolution, in its aftermath. The calculation to sell out wholesale this whole Continent we had conquered was the greatest mistake of history since the Roman Empire decided to leave Rome undefended. The alternative scenario is indeed that the whole world would have been French instead of English if Napoleon and Voltaire had not been so wrong about what it entailed to lose most of their positions abroad.

        To you, the French didn’t “give” anything to the United States. To me, France and the US are very much from the same roots. Freemason roots… La Fayette and co.
        It is Bleu Blanc Rouge as it is Red White & Blue.
        It’s Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness… or it is Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Death.

        It goes way beyond just the Louisiana Purchase, which you make a big deal out of. The American Revolution could only be won with the help of France. That’s where Benjamin Franklin made the plans, in coffee houses.

        In a way, it was a pretty crappy deal for France and for us. They spent a billion livres assisting the US in the war, which raised their debt way too high, went in a detrimental war of conquest on the Continent a little later (since they ended up losing) and ended up signing off everything they owned in America, save a few worthless islands. They were stupid, but not as stupid as Spain, at least… but still, they lost by their own lack of foresight.

        Anyway, the Enlightenment is mostly a thing that came out from France and Britain, which then traveled to the New World. There is a common heritage there. It really is only about Franco and Anglo in Canada. Native-Americans is a different narrative altogether, they do not recognize the government of Canada to be legitimate in general. The rest are sub-stories… like the insignificant detail that the Vikings came all the way to our shores earlier. Some novel theories also hold that the Chinese came to our shores much earlier. Is it relevant to the Big Picture, not really. Same as Bushmen in many countries are not really significant to detail the history of the Nation-States they inhabit. It only becomes significant if they take over… like if France or England becomes Islamic Republic or Kingdom, their history really starts to be reshaped completely. If the French minority disappear, Canada is no more the same country and that isn’t for the best either. It would be turning that country into a “Province” of the American Empire, without much of anything to authentically call their “own”. I absolutely recognize the heritage of the Scotsmen, but let’s all agree they fit within the wider “Anglo” group. Jews, Italians, Dutch, Germans, etc, etc… all of them matter in the formation and development, but not at all in the same way as the two founding ethnic groups (Nations, Cultures, whatever you want to call it). Norwegians, Ukrainians, Poles and Swedes matter none at all in the foundation and formation of North-America however, zero, nadda. That, I would say, is a PC rhetoric. We are the world, let’s all hold hands and sing kumbaya. You know what I mean. I know what you are saying, but it’s a bit skewed as a vision. It’s not realistic at all. Otherwise, French are Norwegian, Norwegians are Danes, Romanians are Indian, Indians are African, Libyan are Italian. Everyone may come from everywhere else, at some point, it isn’t all that relevant in the long run what genetic marker is in your DNA. All that matter is who’s resilient enough to stay and make the land around them their land, articulating their culture. The origin of the person on that land don’t matter, if the culture of the majority goes on to assimilate, through generations, through a common founding heritage.

        • The difficulty, Joel, is that you are dealing with yesterday as though it applies to today, but being selective in the process. You are also looking at it from a strictly Quebec perspective. I'm not a PC guy at all but grew up on the Canadian prairies where there were no French at all, apart from their own little isolated communities, now mostly gone. Certainly there were English but they were outnumbered by other Europeans who only used English as a convenient means of communication, while speaking their native languages at home. Much like they do now in fact but the languages tend to be Asian. The stale Kumbaya joke doesn't apply here.

          The French language will disappear over time, just as others have disappeared and just as those French communities have disappeared in Western Canada, though not within our lifetimes. That also doesn't mean, like you say, that we can't pass on the French values and traditions to those who come after us. And I say that because, apart from the language we speak at home, our traditions and values are much the same. And this sense of what our shared values and traditions are is really at the heart of the debate here. We are talking free speech and the cultural rights of those who settled this land, created a culture where all could get along rather well, and fought to protect those shared freedoms that we find ourselves discussing now.

          Now some Canadians are claiming we don't have free speech, that we lack any culture, that other cultures should take precedence over our own. To me this is just another form of warfare, but fought on different grounds than history is used to. This is why we must fight for our "common founding heritage" in order that we don't ever let the government and its bureaucratic things decide what we can say or not say. This goes against all the values and traditions all caring Canadian people share.

          • Agreed with most of the details within this post, not the whole, but the spirit of it.

            And French, especially Québécois, are not going anywhere. We’re way too resilient, stubborn, obnoxious, loud brats to be disappearing. I’d even say we may have more of a kicking chance in the long run… as France does.

            Many extremists from France move out to Québec. Dantec is Far-Right I’d say, his theory is that France is occupied so he can no longer live there. Dieudonné is Far-Left so a pathetic anti-Semite. Both of these extreme usually find themselves a friendly shore in Québec.

            While you talk of Free Speech. France have taken Dieudonné infront of a judge for what he said on television and during his concerts. He is very controversial in France. Here, he have no problem what so ever. Same for deeply “islamophobic” Dantec (whom I’d say is very much the Québec equivalent of Steyn).

            I think Freedom of Speech may be impeded by the generic HRC. At the same time, it is an interesting phenomenon you can note. Artists that are too distasteful for the easily offended French public move to Québec. It’s very new, Dantec and Dieudonné are the antithetic examples.

            At the same time, if you follow patterns of the past decades, there is nothing surprising to this. Who knows, maybe one day Québec will get a Nobel of Literature for a French writer who’s a refugee here. It would be a sad day, but you know… it can happen. France moving to Québec, it’s elite especially, may be something one wish to pay attention to, as the Muslim minority become ever more assertive. Cause you know, they won’t move to Brussels or anything, but Montreal become a nice destination, both for French Jews and French Catholics who feel squeezed out a little in their banlieues.

            See, you wanted me to stop talking about yesterday, here I am making a Mark Steyn of myself, predicting possible catastrophic scenarios for tomorrow. So again, don’t bet against Québec, the old beast ain’t dead yet.

          • I reckon the future is more important than the past anyway, Joel, and i certainly wish continued success for Quebec.

            If it continues to be the only place in Canada for those who are allowed to speak their minds than it just might gain the sort of reputation the Dutch once had, or the Paris of the 20's. Or even Hyde park in London. If so, because it is in the French language, it might be the only place in the country safe from the damnable CHRC bureaucrats who want to be the sole arbiters of what is acceptable speech and what isn't. And we both know that their rules will become ever more changeable and stringent over time as their power increases. it was ever thus with bureaucrats.

            I plan on moving there shortly and am hoping I might fit in well. Then let's separate!

          • Joël, je suis épatée ! Je vous adore !
            Grant, I love your conversation with Joël ! If you emigrate to Québec, I want to meet you !

          • That's a very kind thing to say, Québécoise !

            Thank you so very much.

            Grant

  71. re: the whole Darth Vadar thing. That argument relies on an assumption that only those religious (or perhaps non-religious) elements which have long histories are deserving of reverence. I find it hard to imagine how anyone could argue for such a premise.

    And, just to point out, for accuracy's sake, I'm pretty sure the veil dates back to pre-Islamic Arabia.

  72. PART I

    Quebec has long been intolerant of human rights in other areas than the niqab and in ways that affect millions. And it really isn't a case of competing views on groups, collectivities, and whatnot.

    It is simple, straightforward segregation of rights. Telling some people that they can't do what other people can do simply because of the group that they belong to.

    And it's not entirely Quebec's fault. Canada has segregation of rights constitutionally entrenched. And I'm not talking about the Indian Act but a law in Quebec (supported by the Canadian constitution) which segregates all individuals into two separate and distince civil rights categories: those that have the free choice to send their children to English or French publicly-funded schools and those that can only send them to French-publicly funded schools. And one's placement in either of the two civil rights groups is determined by who your parents are and what their classification is and this classification is handed down from generation to generation solely by virtue of the parent/child connection. The universally recognized principle that all are equal before the law does not apply.

    • Yes… and what do you make of Pontiac and Louis Riel and the Patriots?

      What you make of French courses being banned in Canada for so long.

      You’re a revisionist with a stubborn, silly, naive perspective.

      If we were hanging, slaughtering and banning English and killing Anglos, you’d have a point. Fact of the matter is, you do not, not at all.

      Florida did belong for most of it’s history to Spaniards, you know. In Miami, they have laws very similar to Bill 101. Get this one straight, there is nothing uncommon about that law, it is very much democratic. Worst still, while it is an obligation in Miami to have English on your storefront, you don’t even have that option to go to a Spanish school!

      Everyone and their mother want to compare everything and anything to Apartheid and Fascism… and everyone is a metaphorical Hitler in this picture of course. It’s silly and shows much ignorance on anything but “generic” overblown understanding of historicism. It’s all so very boring.

      Leftists generally can’t get enough of their reductionist historicism. That’s why they never ever can make sense of anything… and what they end up coming up with is always worst than the things they oppose. Your very clear intolerance of the French stink up the room, get back in the closet you silly reactionnary Orangeman. Try never to use the word Apartheid and Hitler and Fascist for the rest of your life, it will enrich your vocabulary and understanding of the world.

  73. Blatant display of religious attire should be legally banned from our western society. Fanatics and hypocrites use religion as a pretext in order to express who they think they are and differentiate themselves from the rest of society. We should not tolerate this attitide and behaviour as this creates segregation in a canadian society where there has been none until now. We are not against muslims but only the wearing of your flag on your heads and brainwashing your women to do this. Get civilized.

  74. It's about high time we are less accommodating to who to not want to adapt to our society.

    If they do not like it here, they can go back where ever they came from.

    We need to protect our values. The charter of rights and freedoms need to be correct to protect our values.

    Way to Charest, this is just the beginning!

    • Exactly what values are you referring to as “our values” when you are congratulating Quebec on retaining them. They can’t be the values of English-speaking Canadians because we know they have little or tolerance for our language. They have made it against the law to have bi-lingual signage in their province and have forced on new immigrants to be educated in French only. Meanwhile, in the rest of Canada we have language laws that make it against the law not to have bi-lingual signs. Do not make the mistake of thinking that this move has anything to do with protecting the rights of women or the fabric of Canadian traditions. It is blatant disregard for the rights of any group to

  75. And if France don't think of Québec, it is pretty hilarious our music and television keep invading them generation after generation since the 50's. Cause you know, much like there was a British-Invasion in American pop music, there have been a Quebec-Invasion in France that have been going on… oh, since the late 60's. Television also continually infiltrate their market, in the same way as The Office goes to America. So tell me again how they are “getting” Canadian culture except through this invasion. By David Cronenberg and Neil Young, maybe so, but not really that much else. Oh yeah, a few Liberal French I'm in contact with also regret they do not have authors such a Mark Steyn. They had one in Dantec, he moved out to Québec cause France is “occupied” according to him. Another, Houellebecq, also moved out not to get his head chopped off or something unpleasant like this. So rave on, you really got a point or “something” to oppose to it. I'm not being anti-Canadian here, but in so far as Québec is part of Canada, your disgust of it is quite… how to say… self-hating? I don't mean to be disparaging, but all the while you list Don Cherry as one of the Great Canadian, I'm pretty sure no one gives a hoot about him anywhere else in the world. And when I seen the Olympics opening and closing Ceremony. Somehow, I wasn't proud that we were reduced to a grotesque stereotype. As a whole, not just the French, everything seemed wrong. It makes me wonder for 2014 if Russia will call Sergey Brin to mention the fact he was born in Moscow and is “Proud to be Russian”. You know, like we use William Shatner as typically Canadian for having had exclusively an American career. Something's wrong in this picture… and it isn't the stubborn intolerant Quebecers.

  76. My apologies, I assumed that you would understand that I was paraphrasing. My mistake.

    "He shared his feelings and I shared mine. Where is your problem?"

    You don't get to take the moral high ground in a debate if lower yourself to name calling.

  77. Well, we can expect Mark Steyn to be really balanced on this one eh?
    Take off the funny little hat Mark!

  78. Yep! I was agreed, I'll keep in touch to your blog. This blog is so usefully, Thanks for the posted ;)

  79. If people come to Canada from another country, they should come knowing how to behave like a Canadian not like a *insert Nationality here*. If they want to behave as they did in their home country, why not return, where their beliefs and values are not going to be rejected. Honnestly if this lady in the article really wants her niqijaballa or whatever, she can go where it's accepted, say, somewhere off the North American continent.

  80. Tempest in a teapot. The impugned garment affects approximately 22 women. Get a grip on life. By logical extension men with beards must remove them and ladies with make up must stop painting their faces. I have seen ladies in the morning without their war paint and they are barely recognizable. De minimis ladies and gentlemen.

  81. hey man thats true

  82. i belive this is so damm true everyone should read and understand this

  83. this guy saeed is good mark styne should read this

  84. 80% of Canadians support this ban. All demographic groups mentioned (age, gender, political affiliation) showed majority approval at the least and strong majority for most groups. This isn't a question of english values vs french values, it's a question of Canadian values… Canadians it would seem, who VALUE this ban. This is from an Angus Reid poll. Funny thing is the G&M poll got roughly the same results.

    if the English Canadian media wants to pick this fight, it appears they're on there own.

  85. This is absolute rubbish. Why don't men where Niqabs or Hijabs. You are a fake, Islam demeans women (takes the word of 4 women to 1 man in a sharia court), any children "belong" to the man, you are under the complete command of your husband, who in addition is allowed other wives. Can Muslim women have more than one husband? Ha.
    Its not just the Niqab that is incompatible with Canadian life, it is Islam in total. Muslims should not be allowed into Canada.

    • eyy, men do not need to wear niqab s because, for ex you can walk top less no other guy is going to look at you, in Islam men and women are equal you cannot judge or characterize one Muslim as one, everyone is different. Islam doest-not demean a women get your facts right, you have to be a Muslim to understand this, but you should read more , because what you said is pure rubbish, and if a women had more than one husband who is the child belong too, read and understand this then reply " Biologically, it is easier for a man to perform his duties as a husband despite having several wives. A woman, in a similar position, having several husbands, will not find it possible to perform her duties as a wife. A woman undergoes several psychological and behavioral changes due to different phases of the menstrual cycle.
      A woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex. This is not the case in a man having more than one wife, and none of them having extra-marital sex." so watch what you say true its freedom of speech but in the charter of rights read what it says " Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
      (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
      (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom
      of the press and other media of communication;
      (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
      (d) freedom of association.
      so you have no right to say they should be kicked out, and
      Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to
      the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in
      particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin,
      colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
      so get your facts right man everyone has the right from the law to do what they please and to live in peace and freedom any CULTURE OR RELIGION !!!!

      • ROB this guy saeed is telling you the truth the Muslims have the right to live they are human beings just like you and me there is no difference, everyone has the right to freedom of conscience and religion. so you cannot say we have to get ride of Muslims they are good people my neighbor is Muslim and i trust him with everything. i am a Christian and there are good and bad Christians same with Muslims there are good and bad.

        • But this is not a discussion about good and bad Muslims, Mike. This is about a paranoid who wants to wear a shroud over her body and doesn't want men within her vision.

          If this is an example of Islam, and they appear to defend this misogynistic practice, then we must question whether we really want more Muslims in our country. While they have their customs, Canada has its customs also, and because we are in Canada our customs must take precedence over theirs. When Canadians are in Muslim run countries we are asked to follow their customs, often with force, and we do. Surely it's not too much to expect the same respect of them..

          • with force give me an example of the with force no muslim country that any other enthicity or religion goes their doesnt get nay hardship your treated as a king ask anyone who visited there if you were miss treated on one country or by one person does not make all other muslim countrys making you fallow there customs by force for ex look at dubai or kuwait or qatar or saudi or emirates or jordan or egypt no one forces you

    • Well said !

  86. this is rubbish, Muslim women are not oppressed, you do not now anything man get your facts right, they are the same as normal women but they are just covering , so other men do not look at her, except her husband read more man then reply
    we can see that hijab is a screen of privacy, Hijab is a screen of privacy?Niqab is a better screenHijab helps develop conscious of god {taqwa}?Niqab helps develop more taqwaHijab is a jihad that purifies the soul?Niqab is a greater jihadHijab is a protection for sisters?Niqab is a better protectionHijab is an assertion of Islamic identity?Niqab is a stronger assertionHijab is obligatory

    • So, what happens if a man should look at a woman? Take your nonsense outlook of a woman being someone else's property back to where it belongs, in Islamabad. Its a protection ?? from what? So you're admitting it is an assertion of MUSLIM IDENTITY ?? I thought it was about some sort of purity? and yes, I am a woman.

  87. first of all no they dont belive that women have small brains, and no non-mahrams does not mean non-muslim, lisen hun go learn about the religion understand what you say then come back and reply if you dont like it live with it read the charter of rights and freedoms, Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to
    the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in
    particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ETHNIC ORIGIN,
    colour, RELIGION, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

    • As a good Muslim,Saeed, do you support the right of Homosexuals and their right to live their lives freely and openly as homosexuals??

  88. first of all, men do not need to wear niqabs or jilbabs you no nothing about this religion, and everyone in canada muslim or not has the rights as a normal candaian would, we all have the freedom of religon, Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to
    the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in
    particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ETHNIC ORIGIN,
    colour, RELIGION, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
    i was not wearing a niqab,
    islam is already in candan muslims are everywhere is canada everyone is aloud to live peace fully so why not live in peace with your muclim neighbors

    • "first of all, men do not need to wear niqabs or jilbabs you no nothing about this religion"

      I know what equal rights are though, Saeed, and if women are required to be modest, why not men? You travel around for a few days with your head and body covered in course cloth and you might feel quite differently. You might also appreciate the sunshine on your face.

      Certainly you have freedom of religion, and others have a right to bar you for inappropriate dress. It happens all the time and is accepted here, so you should get used to it.

      If you genuinely want to live in peace with Canadians then learn to dress appropriately to the occasion. What part of that do you not understand?

    • i agree with you that there are terrorists but there are good and bad people same with the muslims there are good and bad, did you not that in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible says, in 1 Corinthians 11:4-7 : Any man who prays or propehsies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head–it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and relection of God; but woman is the reflection of man.
      So, yes, the New Testament of the Christian Bible says that women should cover their heads when they pray, and men should not. so in the bible it even says they must cover there hair, i told you befor women must cover there hair and body either with julbab or a long skirt you dont have to wear a niqab

  89. most of us, its just a couple of you what did a muslim do to you, i am cristian and i belive they have the right to live just like you and me, if there are bad muslims there are good, if there a good chrisitnas then there is bad crisitians right, haha man read the chrter of rights the are aloud to belive what they want its the religion and it is legal in canada they are free this is a free country get YOUR FACTS RIGHT ,

  90. screen that separates the public means that the niqab which only lets her husband look at her beauty and the jilbab, for ex if a rapist was walking by he saw a girl wearing tight jeans and a lady that is covered he cannot see anything who would he go for obviously the one who is showing her beauty, i believe that the niqab is not obligatory but the covering of the body and hair is, muslim women who were the jilbab and head scarf, is that women should be modest, and cover their beauties like their hair and their chest. At home among family and in front of their husband, Muslim women do not need to wear head scarves or jilbabs. and no muslim men do not belive women have small brains but they are eqaul just like men,they have the same rights as we do, right you are a women who has rights just like a man would in canada right.

    • You are absolutely right about equal rights in Canada and western societies, but that is not the case in Islamic ideologies. You get the best of both worlds when it suits you. More often than not, I see muslim women wearing tight, revealing clothes and lots of makeup, with a hijab on the head ?? ! looks very hypocritical to me.

      • you are right to but do you think everyone is the same there are good muslims who fallow the religion and there are some that just hold the name muslim but they dont fallow it,

        • If its a real religion, "modesty" should apply even in the home with husbands and friends. Your muslim self-image is false and we see through you. I knew someone who walked the streets covered in drapes and then looked like a half naked hooker at home (I accidentally happened to get a sneak peak). SO LEARN TO RESPECT THE NORMS OF OUR SOCIETY IF YOU CHOSE TO COME AND LIVE HERE.

  91. "I'm with the intolerant Quebecers" ya you would be Mr. Steyn. And though I could not disagree with you more, my version of tolerance includes allowing you to have your own opinion and even to express it in your uniquely provocative way … let me know if you get called up again by the thought police for comparing the niqab to Darth Vader … I'll stand up for your right to be a politically incorrect jerk any day (Don't get offended you know you do it deliberately)

    … but I wonder why you won't give the same type of tolerance to these women whose only crime is to follow a tradition you, and apparently a surprising number of Macleans bloggers, don't like and don't agree with …

    Fundamentally my question to all those spouting defence of our society and civil rights is – what possible difference does it make to me or you that some Islamic women wear the niqab? I am all for practicality and expect that some times in some places, we cannot accommodate everyone … but is this really the point to draw the line?

    I am not as concerned about where you or anyone else stands on the issue as I am about why you care.

    Let them be I say. This is an embarrassment not only for Quebec but for anyone who pretends that Canada is a tolerant society.

    • Is that your real name? if its really your name, its time to wake ujp.

    • this is beutifull your amazing this is true

  92. I will never come to terms with Canada allowing a language law that suppresses the other official language as a means of promoting French. When governments pass repressive laws democracy dies. here in Quebec it's a language law complete with a police force and a full government department ensuring compliance,. Yet another department vetoes what it considers to be unacceptable first names of newborn children when parents request an official birth certificate. The smoking police,the garbage and recycling police,anonymous complaints leading to charges, and now a what one can wear law…….man,what a great democracy….the rest of Canada should follow suit and teach the world what real democracy is…you know like what they have in some Middle East and African countries.

  93. What an unwelcome burden. Who lets these freaks into Canada? They have no intention of becoming normal Canadians. Go home Naema Ahmed and take all your backwards relatives with you. Bravo to Quebec for standing up to these weirdos.

  94. The niqab is nothing but an expression of an antiquated religious sect, with the result, among other things, oflooking like a complete mentally challenged buffoon-ness. Allowing such an atrocity would be like entrusting retarded people with balancing the federal budget.

    • So much for freedom of religion … what about yamulkas? What about drinking wine (or grape juice if you are protestant) for the body of Christ? What about crosses with the Lord's Prayer inscribed on them? Are they not symbols of religious sects which some may say are antiquated? What about turbans or reclining Buddhas? Shall we outlaw all these things too?

      Freedom of religion generally means that you can practice your religion, whether stupid practice or not, and as long as it doesn't affect the rest of us then go ahead. Pray five time to Mecca or don't eat fish on Fridays or hop on one foot every full moon it is all the same When it comes to religion, there is no such thing as objectively reasonable or not, In fact the one common characteristic of most religious practices is that, taken out of context and divorced from meaning, they are all, almost all, pretty silly.

      The niqab doesn't hurt anyone except maybe the wearer … and that my friends means it is none of our business.

  95. I am a male working in a large Unisex Family Haircare Salon chain in Ontario. We welcome everybody without exceptions in our salon. Recently, we've been asked to accomodate women wearing head coverings. Our salon is open concept. We don't really have a proper station that provides complete privacy. My employer has decided that me must honour their request for privacy but they aren't providing a private room. What they are doing is bringing them to the back half of the salon which is sort of separated (by a quarter wall) and requesting that all male customers and myself stay away and divert their eyes. Since this is where the washrooms and lunch room are, I must eat elsewhere as well as use the washroom at another business. Male clients asking for services that require the stations set up in the back are refused service until the woman has left. Discuss…

  96. Is Steyn even trying anymore? It really feels like he has been dialing it in for the past year or so. After reading his articles it seems like he just slaps them together. Can't we get some other author's opinion pieces? There have got to be other writers that could occupy his spot with a little more zest.

  97. Niqab expresses adhesion to sharia law.
    Although the niqab is recent, sharia law dates back to muhammad.

    What does sharia say about freedom of religion ?
    That people born into islam must remain muslim or be killed.
    No freedom at all.

    What about people who are not muslim ?
    Why, they better not talk muslims into changing their faith, even inadvertently.
    For that is punishable of – guess what: death.

    Now, what sense is there to ganting benefits of freedom of conscience to people who express their intention to eradicate this freedom ?

  98. Mr. Steyn has this remarkable ability to attract a lot of response to his rants . Now the problem is that Majority of Muslims also support that ban on veil and has no problem with Quebec on that issue , while Mr. Steyn really wants to hate all Muslims in Canada and this does not work very well, now you will have to pretend that you do not hate Muslims and people of color , you just hate some idiotic actions,makes it complicated !. Those who look like John A Macdonald must get more respect and preferential treatment than those who look like Obama , if Mr. Steyn had his way.
    How difficult it is for you to contain your racism Mr. Steyn ! or you love to reveal it intentionally to the sheer delight of like minded racists who choose to remain silent but love to see you rant ! , You are doing a good job, the only alternative to a healthy debate is you, Those who want to build a Holocaust museum in every small town in Canada are even more respectable that John A Macdonald , Now you can not disagree on that for sure!
    I

  99. Hello Steyn,
    I am counting on you this week. Too much stupidity in the news: "killing ones daughter for coming home late, or causing similar blemishes to ones family is not cultural"; expecting that hosts of the world's greatest sport event respect their guests' (millions, if we include TV spectators) right to enjoy their game without a violent, and deafening, noise: "it is Africa's sound, so if you don't like it – good riddance".
    Your voice is needed in these matters.

  100. "Mme Ahmed's views may be sincerely held, but, if so, they mean she can never be a functioning member of a pluralist Western society in any meaningful sense of the term. "

    I'm certain that she has no intention of ever being a "functioning member of a pluralist Western society." She and her ilk intend to abolish "pluralist Western society."

    H.

  101. Question 1: If the hijab should be accommodated, why not the KKK head covering? Their symbolism is almost identical. The hijab wearer simply hates a broader group.

    Question 2: Why are the men in her class not crying sexism?

  102. I have just listened to your Youtube interview on your book America Alone on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson. As I could not find the opportunity to comment on Youtube, I hope you won't mind me making my comment here.

    I was somewhat surprised to see that you make no mention of Bosnia and Kosovo in this interview. Bosnia was just like those "friendly Stans" you mention in the USSR before the breakup. The US radicalised Bosnia. The mujahedeen who trained in Bosnia have been very active in the US and UK since. As for Kosovo, it is the breeding ground for drugs, people trafficking and radicalisation. The Saudis have built more mosques than you can count while over 150 Christian Orthodox churches and monasteries, some dating from the XIVth century, have been dynamited, gutted and used as urinals. Kosovo has been torn away by the Muslim Albanians from it's Serbian heartland. The EULEX crew out there has just given what remains of these jewels of History to the Albanian police to "guard". Would you leave your sheep to be looked after by a wolf?!?!

  103. ¨Canada's state ideology says, if you can get here, you're as Canadian as Sir John A. Macdonald¨

    Didn't he say ¨A Britisher I was born, a Britisher I will die"?

  104. Interesting how it is that English Canada is considered "intolerant" and yet the Muslim/Islamic community is never referenced with that word. I've always marvelled how immigrants want to come to our house and then change the furniture and paint the walls to their tastes and customs.

  105. Niqab is not Islamic. Covering of the face by women is nowhere mentioned in Qur'an, and the opinions of Islamic legal scholars on it are not unanimous. The Hanafi school of Islamic law, which is most widespread among Muslims, specifically rules out face covering, on the basis of women's needs while dealing normally with men, in commerce and elsewhere. In traditional Islam, men are called on to act modestly, and women are not ordered to disfigure and subordinate themselves by masking their features. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said that women making the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca should not cover their faces or wear gloves, although in their typically perverse manner, Saudi Wahhabi clerics now seek to impose it upon them even then.

    Millions of Muslim women around the world do not wear so-called Islamic dress, but have retained local customary garments, which do not distort their form or personality. Many have adopted the same fashions as Western or Far-Eastern women. Women in Hejaz, the Western Arabian region in which the holy cities of Mecca and Medina are located, did not, in the past, cover their faces, and increasingly protest against the imposition of this practice.

    The radicals who promote niqab try to pretend that a woman becomes a "better Muslim" by covering her face. This concept is no more Islamic than niqab itself. In traditional Islam, division of Muslims between the good and the bad, aside from those who have committed terrorist or criminal acts, will be decided by God, not by men or women.

    According to established Islamic guidance, Muslims who migrate to non-Muslim societies are required to accept and obey the laws and customs of the countries to which they move. Attempts to introduce niqab into Western countries represent an obvious violation of this principle.

Sign in to comment.