Actually it was a Canadian Muslim group -- a group that knows full well what these garments mean for the subjugation of women. But our enlightened multicultural Western governments know better, of course. "Muslim group urges gov't to ban burkas, niqabs in public," from The Canadian Press, October 7 (thanks to Maxwell):
TORONTO -- Middle Eastern garments designed to cover a woman's face are "medieval" and "misogynist" symbols of extremism with no basis in Islam, a Canadian Muslim lobby group said Wednesday as it urged Ottawa to ban the burka and the niqab.
The Muslim Canadian Congress called on the federal government to prohibit the two garments in order to prevent women from covering their faces in public -- a practice the group said has no place in a society that supports gender equality.
"To cover your face is to conceal your identity," congress spokeswoman Farzana Hassan said in a telephone interview, describing the issue as a matter of public safety, since concealing one's identity is a common practice for criminals.
The tradition of Muslim women covering their faces in public is a tradition rooted more in Middle Eastern culture than in the Islamic faith, Hassan added.
There is nothing in any of the primary Islamic religious texts, including the Qur'an, that requires women to cover their faces, she said -- not even in the controversial, ultra-conservative tenets of Sharia law.
Considering the fact that women are in fact forbidden from wearing burkas in the grand mosque in Mecca, Islam's holiest site, it hardly makes sense that the practice should be permitted in Canada, she said.
"If a government claims to uphold equality between men and women, there is no reason for them to support a practice that marginalizes women."...
Is she implying that Middle Eastern culture isn't pretty much Islamic culture?
No slave clothes in the land of the free.
I'm sure CAIR and other US-based group and masjids will chime in with heartfelt support.
This is nothing more than Taquiyya. This is an appeasement towards the Liberalist relativistic lobby to give them ammo to say, “See, they’re concerned about security too.” While not addressing the true assault on our way of life by islam…speaking of which, Kurt Westergaard on the Michael Coren show yesterday:
http://www.ctstv.com/ontario/player.php?ctsvidID=17068&show=Michael Coren Show
Due to security reasons, MC couldn’t advertise Kurt was coming on. That, in itself speaks volumes.
In the closing statements by Lars Hedegaard, President of the International Free Press Society, he made a very good observation of a statement by Princeton U Prof Bernard (couldn’t catch the last name) that Islam has now considered that “Sharia has been introduced as defacto law” in Dar al-Harb.
Kurt as always, shows his wisdom that comes with the experience of age, and the trials and tribulations forced upon him by Jihad.
A wee modification of dress will not subdue the truly vigilant.
More OT:
Just when you thought Jihad was just Jihad, but now it’s directed Jihad, as the ISI whore out Jihadists to spread their ROP in Kashmir:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Go-to-jail-or-join-jihad-against-India-ISI-tells-surrendered-Taliban/articleshow/5095277.cms
A tradition rooted more in Middle Eastern culture than in the Islamic faith? What bullshit. This particular oppressive tradition, like so many others that stultify women in the Muslim world, flows virtually unimpeded from Islamic dictates. Duh.
Once again we see so clearly that trying to put a happy face on Islam doesn't work except for the mendacious and the ignorant (unfortunately, this includes a large number of Muslim women who still don't grasp the real truth of things). Islam can't be reformed; it can only be discarded.
Reforming Islam is as much a fool's errand as reforming Marxism or fascism. No true reform is possible. This verity is for all time. Mankind must eventually rid itself of Islam. Keeping it in any form will never work to the benefit of the human race. Never.
Irrespective of the motives of those Muslim women who are calling for this ban, I do think that non-Muslim Canadian resisters of jihad and sharia should urge the Canadian government to say 'Yes, sure', and to proceed to institute the requested ban, at once; and to resolute and if necessary forceful *enforcement* of the ban.
Islam is a 'high-context' system. The visible presence of black-bagged women acts as a subliminal signal of all sorts of other things. (See Malcolm Gladwell in 'Tipping Point', on 'the power of context', to see why the act of banning the burqa, if that ban is resolutely enforced, might have all sorts of interesting psychological effects, not just on the Mohammedans, but on non-Muslims).
Agreed. I sincerely hope the MCC is successful in this endeavor. Banning of hefty bags will send a powerful message, no matter who originated the idea.
Meanwhile, good old Charles Johnson has taken a break from trashing Glenn Beck and the sinister creationist conspiracy to once again accuse Robert Spencer of "teaming up" with "Euro-supremacists" (i.e. Europeans that wish to save their civilisation from Islamisation). Johnson, after accusing Mr. Spencer of demonising "all Muslim" (no evidence of this is provided of course), proceeds to cut-and-paste from the liberal-left, Daily Kos-esque "Loonwatch.com". Yet, after all the nasty name calling and trafficking in guilt-by-association, neither Johnson, nor his new friends at Loonwatch have demonstrated how anything said by Mr. Spencer about Islam is wrong. Of course, we all know neither party cares if Mr. Spencer is right or wrong, as both are hate traditional Western civilisation and wish to further the establishment of a liberal-left, multiculturalist order.
"medieval" and "misogynist" symbols of extremism with no basis in Islam...
Well, the first two are right...but the part about no basis in Islam is dubious...Why is it that the only women who wear burqas are Mahoundians?...Wearing the Islamic uniform is nothing new, Muslimahs have been wearing them for centuries...
Not many of them have ever complained, until modern times when the west put unIslamic ideas in their heads...
Banning the burqa is a kufr idea...Allah won't be happy when he hears of this...
No No, Guys, please, it’s not a good thing. It’s all a ploy. DD, any reinforcement of this Taquiyya to the MCC and the muslim offshoots will only embolden themselves. NoDhimmi, your support, again falls into their short term trap to make things appear OK. Virgil, you have a narcissistic pulse on the reality of the situation.
And duh-swami, you hit the nail on the head, but not with an air pressure gun. Regardless, it’s all a cover up. There will be backlash, and all this has done is to create an HR debate to steer attention away from what islam really wants (sharia) to establish in the Dar al-Harb. They are medieval in ideology, this doesn’t mean they can’t learn a few tricks from us old dogs and try to use them like a new tailor flogging 70’s dancing dress suits complete with the disco scarf.
muslims wanting to ban the burka ect. let me check the date hmm has anyone told the CMC that its a bit late for a April fools joke but if they can get the burka banned it would be nice given that there have been several times crooks have taken advantage of burka and that it normally is worn by muslim WOMEN to comit crimes and to escape from honor killings
The remarkable diversity of opinion found in the comments section at LGF is proof positive of both the originality and individualism of the thinkers who gravitate to that web-site...and the open-mindedness and intellectual courage of its proprietor, Charles Johnson.
;-)
Let's say you're right Kaf_Kan (sorry, I can't write your whole name, as I find being called a Kaf_ _ is very offensive, right up there with the N word in North America. I know too many South Africans for it to ever be acceptable).
What would the Islamic community have to do to show good intentions?
We have asked so many times "If you wanted your old school ways, why didn't you stay in your Islamic country?" Now they have come over, asked for a change in their ways to be less confrontational, and you think this is a bad idea? Is everything to be coloured by taquiyya?
I think this is an awesome idea, even better that it is coming from an Islamic community as it takes away ammunition for opponents of Sarkoszy and co who are asking for the same thing. Let the reformers push their reform agenda.
mikeymike, it's good for rhetorical purposes in the war of ideas phase of the anti-islam movement. However, until these anti-hijab Muslims stop revering Mohammed and the Koran, I'm afraid I tend to withhold my trust.
The tradition of Muslim women covering their faces in public is a tradition rooted more in Middle Eastern culture than in the Islamic faith. Really? Well, let's see.
Quran 33:59 - O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known, so as not to be annoyed...
Ibn Kathir, Islamic scholar and author of an extensive commentary on the Quran, says the following about this verse:
...and to draw their (Khumur) veils all over their Juyub. Khumur (veils) is the plural of Khimar, which means something that covers, and is what is used to cover the head. This is what is known among the people as a veil. (and to draw) means to pull it around and tie it securely. (their veils all over their Juyub) means, over their necks and chests so that nothing can be seen of them.
So the Quran says women are to veil their head, and draw this veil over their heads, neck, and chest so that NOTHING IS SEEN.
Only from Middle Eastern culture???
careylj's evidence shows another reason why we cannot trust these Canadian Muslims. How can they be so ignorant of their own Islam? Something is fishy here.
It is not ignorance, but a tactical retreat. Even one's worst enemy will backtrack if they feel that they have gone beyond their supply lines. This does not imply a change of heart, but simply a prudent act. The Islamist will be back for another round as sure as the sun rises.
Well: if they *are* backtracking, then the Infidels should push the advantage while we have it.
By all means ban the burqa, and enforce the ban; and let it be clearly known that there will be *no* retreat from that, no possibility of burqas being worn on Canadian soil ever again.
Then ban the wearing, in any and all public places, of *all* peculiarly Islamic forms of female slave rag (those ugly 'headwraps' that are designed to conceal every strand of hair). It being Canada, the indigenous Infidel styles of scarf for warmth, for example the Hermes scarf, in the Francophone districts, would remain permissible.
All it will take, I think, is just one Infidel country to make the move; it would be exquisite if Canada were to institute a Burqa Ban before la belle France gets around to it, but I don't think France would be far behind, if Canada were to do it. And hey, maybe the UK would then find the courage to follow suit, mother following daughter...
Say NO to the burqa and I think it might be easier for Infidel authorities to get into the habit of saying NO to other Mohammedan demands. Stealth Jihad can be put into reverse; the Islamoforming of dar al Harb can be ratcheted back.
Any time we see the *Mohammedans* give an inch we non-Muslims should not hesitate to take a mile.
(Exactly the same principle as should be applied on the 'hot' battlefield against jihad: the moment the jihadis start screaming and singing out for a timeout, is the precise moment that the Infidel generals should hit them like the hammers of God).
Here is what an ex Muslim lady told me about the Burqa in Canada. "You hardly saw women wearing it until after 9/11. Then it grew in popularity with the Muslims. Especially those from Pakistan who's husband worked in Saudi Arabia." She also noticed a change in the way Muslims greeted one another. They would say asalykum [however it is spelled] with a hand gesture from the heart area. After 9/11 the hand gesture moved to being from the forehead. Like a military salute. Most of these Muslim women chose to wear the big black tent as a show of solidarity with radical Islam and it is these same women who will be sounding off the loudest in the near future if a ban is seriously considered.
I suspect this proposed ban to be more public relations than concern for women's rights.
Here is what an ex Muslim lady told me about the Burqa in Canada. "You hardly saw women wearing it until after 9/11. Then it grew in popularity with the Muslims. Especially those from Pakistan who's husband worked in Saudi Arabia." She also noticed a change in the way Muslims greeted one another. They would say asalykum [however it is spelled] with a hand gesture from the heart area. After 9/11 the hand gesture moved to being from the forehead. Like a military salute. Most of these Muslim women chose to wear the big black tent as a show of solidarity with radical Islam and it is these same women who will be sounding off the loudest in the near future if a ban is seriously considered.
I suspect this proposed ban to be more public relations than concern for women's rights.
Take the lead Canada ban this rag dress, they are asking for it. Before France takes the lead do it.
Actually, Tunisia has banned the burqa and it has done wonders for the country. The jihadists have departed and European tourism is increasing.
If you followed the polygamous FLDS community in Eldorado, TX, you can see parallels in their cultural trends with Moslims. As decades passed, the women covered more and more of their bodies and traded modern clothing for prairie dresses over 5 decades. The math of polygamy dictated that 2 out of 3 young males had to be run out of the compound. The genetics of the process created rare recessive gene diseases.
If we could get Christians to condemn polygamy instead of the religion I believe we could make progress with the religion of Satan, which will never end but might be modified.
Jason Kenney is Canada's Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.
I heard him speak at a luncheon in Toronto last month.
This is what I wrote about it on my blog (I'm copying & pasting so I don't have to rely on my memory):
During the question and answer period with the luncheon audience, Mr. Kenney had talked about the need for new Canadians to integrate into our society and mentioned the upcoming changes to information being given to immigrants to our country.
In the closed session, I told Mr. Kenney that I am concerned about the increasing number of women I see who are wearing the niqab (face veil) because it is a political statement by the wearer about Islamism or political Islam. I asked if the government was going to do anything to address this.
Mr. Kenney said no. He mentioned the rules re. religious garb in schools in France and said that, in banning the hijab, they had also banned the yarmulke and the cross. He said he wouldn't want our government to dictate what people may or may not wear.
Maybe, if enough Muslims make a loud enough fuss, and they are joined by non-Muslims, the government might have a change of heart.
However, I highly doubt that this minority Conservative government would dare to do it, since most immigrants vote Liberal and the backlash would likely prompt a non-confidence vote in parliament, which would trigger an election that the Liberals would be sure to win, since the issue would mobilize the immigrant vote.
As an aside, but not really, I was told yesterday that 80% of the students at York University are first-generation immigrants, most of whom come from countries that are not democratic and that hate Jews. Hmmmm, which countries might those be?
"Considering the fact that women are in fact forbidden from wearing burkas in the grand mosque in Mecca, Islam's holiest site, it hardly makes sense that the practice should be permitted in Canada, she said."
Oops - red-alert logic here: Saudi Arabia bans burkas, therefore Canada should ban burkas.
Saudi Arabia also bans Jews. Therefore, ...
Who cares what the motives are for Canadian Muslims agreeing to ban the burka and the niqab? The important thing is that this offensive, in-your-face symbol of cultural supremacism would be removed from the landscape and a legitimate security problem would be solved. It also sets a precedent that other Western counties could follow.
Eastview.
Good points. "The important thing is that this offensive, in-your-face symbol of cultural supremacism would be removed from the landscape and a legitimate security problem would be solved. It also sets a precedent".
Exactly.
I disagree, Eastview and dumbledoresarmy. There are two important things here, not one. Eastview mentioned one of them. This does not exclude the other one: that anti-hijab Muslims are still our enemy. This isn't merely an academic or abstract point; it could have actual, and massive, effects on policy motivated by people who gullibly trust Muslims who seem to acquiesce to bits and pieces, without giving up the rotten heart of their supremacist ideology.