Anti-dhimmitude in influential circles. By Jeff Heinrich for the Montreal Gazette:
MONTREAL - No public servant - including Muslim teachers and judges - should be allowed to wear anything at work that shows what religion they belong to, leaders of Quebec's two biggest trade union federations and a civil-servants' union told the Bouchard-Taylor commission Monday.
"We think that teachers shouldn't wear any religious symbols - same thing for a judge in court, or a minister in the National Assembly, or a policeman - certainly not," said Rene Roy, secretary-general of the 500,000-member Quebec Federation of Labour
"The wearing of any religious symbol should be forbidden in the workplace of the civil service . . . in order to ensure the secular character of the state," said Lucie Grandmont, vice-president of the 40,000-member Quebec union of public employees.
Quebec needs a "fundamental law" akin to the Charter of Rights that sets out clearly that public institutions, laws and the state are all neutral when it comes to religion, said Centrale president Rejean Parent. The new law would also "define (people's) rights and duties . . . in other words, the rules of living together."
Under a secular charter, employers would understand that they don't have to agree to accommodate religious employees if, for example, they ask to be segregated from people of the opposite sex, Carbonneau said.
Similarly, religious students in public schools would understand they can dress as they like, but not if it means wearing restrictive clothing like burkas, niqabs and chadors, which make communication difficult, she told commissioners Gerard Bouchard and Charles Taylor.
And in the courts, "there are cases that are clear - I wouldn't want to see a judge in a veil," she said. Judges need to appear "neutral" so as to inspire confidence in their judgment, she added.
Good news on the front end, but I have my doubts that the Islamists won't find a workaround.
They will argue that communication is still uninhibited and as usual, the majority in the government, will probably cave-in.
Tis' the suicidal nature of such things currently.
After reading this hijibs should be banned in the west.
It puts girls in danger from their own fathers and brothers.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/12/10/teen-girl-in-critical-condition-after-alleged-dispute-over-hijab.aspx
The French-speaking world had a great part in creating the problem (read Bat Ye'or's Eurabia) but they are out of desperation also on the forefront of addressing the problem (although it may too late for them). France bans hijabs and is much more effective at countering out-and-out Islamist radicals than the safe-haven providing Britain, although France has a real problem with banlieue automobile-burning youths. Now Quebec has stepped up to the plate. Quebec, on account of linguistic affinities and other unreciprocated allegiences to France, also has a huge Arab population, particularly from the French-speaking Arab colonies. But, when push comes to shove, just like the French they feel comfortable banning hijabs in certain circles.
If only banning hijabs could alter the outcome of the future the Francophones have already willed into being. The worst part of it is that the Franco-geopolitical games affect the rest of Europe and Canada and even the US.
"....but not if it means wearing restrictive clothing like burkas, niqabs and chadors, which make communication difficult,...."
...When Muslims wear these in western societies, the are making a clear communication...one of intended domination, one of fear, and one of a self imposed sense of superiority....clearly infering..."submit or die"...Muslims clearly believe in symbolism...it is why they complain so bitterly about the Milan soccer teams uniforms with a Cross on it...it is why they complain about Christians wearing a chain with a cross on it, is is why they demand the burka, the niqab and the chador for their women....Symoblism...but only the Muslim ones...
...Ban Muslim Immigration...
"And in the courts, 'there are cases that are clear - I wouldn't want to see a judge in a veil, she said. Judges need to appear "neutral" so as to inspire confidence in their judgment, she added."
-- from the article above
A Believer in Islam, someone who takes his Islam seriously and is not merely born into the faith and does not openly declare his apostasy or his refusal to take most of that faith seriously, cannot conceivably dispense justice fairly. How can disputes between husbands and wives be fairly decided, when at the back of such a person's mind is the Shari'a, and the inferiority of women in Islamic courts? What about any dispute, any at all, between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, when all of Islam is based on the distinction, and opposition, of Believer and Infidel, and the loyalty of a Muslim must be to fellow members of the Umma, the Community of Islam?
This is not a theoretical matter, plucked out of the air by the mean-minded. Islam is a Total System. It is not merely a "religion" but covers every area of life and is intensely legalistic. The stuff of Infidel courts may, some think, be resolved by Infidel laws of the Infidel nation-state, but what Believer in Islam can go along, wholeheartedly, or even half-heartedly, with that?
Not a problem to pretend does not exist. Not in Canada, not in the countries of Western Europe, and not in the United States.
How, for example, in this country, can a Muslim law student, attempting to become a member of the Bar, swear to uphold the American Constitution and conceivably mean it? Islam, the principles of Islam, flatly contradict the Constitution? So which is it -- the American Constition, or Islam? It isn't a case of forcing a choice. The choice has been forced already, by Islam itself. We are only asking that the reply be given, be recorded, and that any mental reservation -- kitman -- or outright lying -- taqiyya -- be exposed, then or, through subsequent behavior and acts, later, so that such a person may be stripped of what he obtained through falsely swearing such an oath.
Quebec Liberals advocate pledge for newcomers:
http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/27176.shtml
"How, for example, in this country, can a Muslim law student, attempting to become a member of the Bar, swear to uphold the American Constitution and conceivably mean it?"
I happen to be applying for another bar membership at this time and found these questions on the bar application:
21. (a) Have you ever knowingly organized or helped to organize or become a member of any organization or group of persons which, during the period of your membership or association, you knew was advocating or teaching that the government of the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof should be overthrown or overturned by force, violence, or any unlawful means? Yes No
(b) If your answer to (a) is “yes”, did you, during the period of such membership or association, have the specific intent to further the aims of such organization or group of persons to overthrow or overturn the government of the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof by force, violence, or any other unlawful means? Yes No
22. Do you now and will you hereafter, without any reservations, loyally support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of South Carolina? Yes No
_______
Thus, any muslim applicant who considers himself a true believer commits fraud by answering these questions which shield his true allegiance to the ummah. You cannot swear to uphold and defend the constitution and sharia simultaneously as Hugh states above.
In addition, every state has a a form of an Ethics committee, or association, charged with monitoring conduct of attorneys. In my opinion, if it can be shown that any attorney shows evidence of belief in Islam and the Koran and therefore in the superiority of sharia, it is grounds for disbarment. Thus, any statement, formal or informal, and essay, article, interview or any other evidence showing an attorney defending Islam is grounds for an ethical complaint to the state bar association.
It would make for quite an interesting case if a muslim attorney were challenged on bar membership for doing nothing other than BEING muslim.
I would imagine it has been challenged somewhere, at some time. If anyone knows of such a case please post. If it hasn't, maybe the time is right for a test case?
2 comments
"Anti-dhimmitude", light version. Can you believe we are even having discussions like this? "Should a judge be allowed to wear a hijab?" How ridiculous can we get with our handringing? Our legal systems are already screwed up, as arbitrary as our laws are applied, with jaw-dropping amounts of lattitude and "discretion". Maybe all judges should wear full hoods.
USorTHEM
No offense to you (reservations on your profession, however), but why is the prepositional phrase "by force, violence, or any unlawful means?" included. This completely neuters the force of the question, which would otherwise appear to be attempting to require allegiance to and advocacy for the said constitutions for bar membership. By adding this phrase, the two questions can be reduced to "Are you a law abiding citizen? Yes No." They can be a member of constitutionally subversive groups (we're not talking about amendments, this is "overturn" and "overthrow") that are not currently criminal and answer these questions in the affirmative. Question 22 is no help, given a Clintonoid dose of kitman ("Depends on the meaning of the word, 'hereafter'.")
"in order to ensure the secular character of the state" - words to live by.
CC
Agreed that perhaps 21 is denuded by the "force or violence" requirements.
But 22 asks directly "do you now and will you hereafter...support the constitution".
A true believer of Islam lies when answering affirmatively the "do you now" part. The "will you hereafter part" cannot be challenged since it is just asking for a promise of future conduct (it can't be proved or disproved).
Also, there is no mechanism that I am aware, for a third party to object to another's bar application. There is a mechanism to object to conduct of attorneys who are existing bar members. That is why I point to the existence of ethics committees.
We would agree that a true believer is unlikely to ever answer "No" to question 22. It is unlikely that a bar admissions committee would challenge a Yes answer on their own based on the applicant's belief in Islam. So in practical terms, it seems to me, if there is to be any success in keeping attorneys who are True Believers from subverting the constitution, the best way to eliminate that threat would be to challenge their fitness to practice law by an ethical complaint after admission.
How can a Muslim judge, or a Muslim prosecutor, possibly be trusted to uphold the law, infidel law, when a fellow Muslim, involved in Islamic (terrorist) activities, is the defendant?
If he claims to follow the Koran and his profit how can the Muslim judge possibly not rule in his favor?
This is all too perverse. Let me get off.
But no, I'll stick around for the ride...
"and his profit"
Nice word play (if intentional). A syndicated radio host recently answered a question (from a Muslim) as to why there was such growth in Islam. "Because it is easy" was the answer. At least for men, they get to do whatever they intended to do anyway (for their own benefit or "profit") and consider themselves pious for their effort. Sounds a lot like a judgeship to me.
Marisol:
Is it sufficient to praise this proposal as "anti-dhimmitude"?
Your response should really be more skeptical. This is only dhimmitude - or some analagous form of intimidation - re-entering through the back door. Although I usually refrain from condemning the Left too eagerly, and often call on others to do the same, I can only say in this case "consider the source": two big labour organizations, spouting the usual anti-religious Socialist nonsense, according to the school of moral equivalency that, in blaming all religions alike for "religious" violence and other abberations, when in fact it is, with only rare exceptions, Islamic violence alone constitutes any significant threat, are hypocriticaly using the "religious neutrality of the secular state" - something the left often too readily ignores when it comes to placating Muslims and buying their votes - as a wedge against all religion.
The exclusion of "any dress that identifies the religion" of the one wearing it is a serious, and menacing, example of overkill. It will be applied against Jews, Christians and others who, even if sometimes annoying, do not usually constitute any serious threat against those who dislike or disagree with their religious convictions. All of this would be a genuinely unjustifiable infringement on religious freedom! Why should a judge or a teacher of Jewish background be forbidden to wear a yarmulka, or Catholic one a crucifix, if he or she, and the religious tradition to which they belong, nonetheless behave properly toward those they work with? Should anyone seriously argue that such actions raise the same issues and problems as the hijab or the niqab, or a pendant representing the verse of the sword?
This policy is tainted with the usual type of multiculturalist evasion. The solution is to reclassify Islam as a supremacist and subversive political movement,the case for which is clearly and easily made from the Islamic scriptural and legal texts, and the historical record.
Sounder:
I note that in the link you provided the report that Charest plans to amend equality rights to trump religious rights. If he carries out that plan successfully, will it mean, for example that religious groups, such as the Catholic Church, that exclude women from certain religious functions are going to be overruled by the secular state and its courts? Many may wish to argue that Catholicism's refusal to admit women to its priesthood (not to mention the Orthodox Churches, Orthodox Judaism, various conservative Protestant groups, etc.) is unjust and that's fine. But is it the role of the state to meddle in such matters, which are usually founded on a theological anthropology and other data that the state has no interest in or competence to judge. Should it be the role of the state to rule on matters of conscience and conviction. Non-Muslim religious groups, do not usually kill their heretics and apostates, which leaves them free to leave that faith or to start, or join, their own variant of it - one that addresses their grievances with the orthodox tradition - if they wish to.
It is impossible for Muslims to be sworn and as for being a judge, ha! If that ever happened, I think things might come to a head.
If I were mega wealthy, I would take Islamic doctrine to trial in a western court. Naturally I would have Robert Spencer on my team, as well as Michael Savage, Pamela Geller and Neil Boortz. The footage would be worth an absolute fortune as we set a GLOBAL PRESCEDENCE.
I would also expose Obama and shame Oprah Winfrey out of the game completely.
Sounder:
I note in the link you provided the report that Charest plans to amend equality rights to trump religious rights. If he carries out that plan successfully, will it mean, for example that religious groups, such as the Catholic Church, that exclude women from certain religious functions are going to be overruled by the secular state and its courts? Many may wish to argue that Catholicism's refusal to admit women to its priesthood (not to mention the Orthodox Churches, Orthodox Judaism, various conservative Protestant groups, etc.) is unjust and that's fine. But is it the role of the state to meddle in such matters, which are usually founded on a theological anthropology and other data that the state has no interest in or competence to judge? Should it be the role of the state to rule on matters of conscience and conviction? Non-Muslim religious groups, do not usually kill their heretics and apostates, which leaves them free to leave that faith or to start, or join, their own variant of it - one that addresses their grievances with the orthodox tradition - if they wish to.
To the site monitor:
Sorry for the redundant posting of my last comment to Sounder. The second version features corrections I inadvertently ommitted in the first one, but which I consider important to what I wanted to convey. I'd appreciate it if you'd kindly delete the first one. Thank you.
WHEN?????
Locate barf bag, then continue:
First Muslim Woman Takes the Bench in Detroit (Michigan)
3rd Circuit
But WAIT, not true...
America's First Muslimah Judge
Zakia Mahasa
Master Chancery in the Family Division of the Baltimore City Circuit Court
WAIT, still not true...
The first Muslim woman judge in the United States is Sheila Abdus-Salaam, an African American who still sits on the New York State Supreme Court. She was appointed more than 15 years ago.
There's MORE:
Hassan Ali El-Amin Joins Maryland Court as First Muslim Judge
Formerly Vernon Jones
The American Muslim
The African American Muslim community also has the distinction of having the first Muslim male judges, Judge Adam Shakoor (retired) of Detroit and Judge David Shaheed of Indianapolis.
America's First Muslim judge, Adam A. Shakoor
Retired, Detroit, 36th District
http://preciousspeaks.com/muslim-journal-excerpt/
David Shaheed, Indianapolis Superior Court
Imam, former President of Interfaith Council and Convenor of Imams for the Midwest Region.
and on your d*mned dmv photo, please!!! (can't believe that one almost flew)
(can't believe they almost allowed burkas...sorry)