"Drouin says it was important to inform potential immigrants of the villages cultural norms"

...NOT that they will adhere to them.....expect Muslim demands to show up and expect the crime rate to rise....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 27, 2007 12:46 PM

This just changed my impression of French Canadians.....

Good for them.

Posted by: Gotham at January 27, 2007 1:29 PM

Could we possibly sell Madame Speaker of the House on passage of a similar legislation in the US?

Posted by: pythagoras at January 27, 2007 1:38 PM

Off topic from the UK:

Fury as Council axes Holocaust memorial service

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at January 27, 2007 1:43 PM

Back around the end of the Cold War if you'd told me the main issue confronting the West would involve the stoning of women, mutilation, and face masks I'm pretty sure I would have called you completely bonkers. 2007 sounds so futuristic doesn't it?

Posted by: Beagle at January 27, 2007 2:06 PM

Well, this is a reaction against cultural accomodation that was raised mainly because of two events in the past 6 months, ironicaly none of them involving muslims; outrageous demands by the hasidic jewish community and by the sikh community.

Posted by: Elliot at January 27, 2007 2:20 PM

Does this mean putting people in stocks, dunking to test for witchcraft and keel hauling are legal? I would have assumed stoning of women and excision were assaults anyway.

Posted by: payingattention at January 27, 2007 2:49 PM

"two events in the past 6 months, ironicaly none of them involving muslims; outrageous demands by the hasidic jewish community and by the sikh community. "

So, what was it?

Posted by: allat at January 27, 2007 2:49 PM

The Quebec village of Hérouxville, 1300 inhabitants, has formally banned this week the stoning of women, face veils, female genital mutilation, or throwing acid at unveiled women’s faces, reports Montreal daily La Presse....

The nerve of those French Canadiens! Now if their French brethren in France would follow suit.

Sorry, temporary loss of sanity. I know that will never happen. Time for another Martini...

Posted by: Clair Voyant at January 27, 2007 3:14 PM

Hérouxville is making a stand! I care not that they are French Canadians! They are fighting for our civilization with this move. They have choosen to side against our enemy. They deserve our respect as our fellow anti-jihadis.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 27, 2007 3:19 PM

Sikhs demanded the right to wear the kirpan in schools, and got it, but this generated a large public debate on cultural accomodations, because blades are forbidden in schools. For the majority, that is.

As for the hasidic jewish community, they demanded that a fitness gymnasium in Montréal seal one of its largest facade window, because we could see the women training inside, which was deamed inappropriat by them.

None of those cases are very outrageous, they're pretty mild by the standard of the crazy lunatic world of cultural accomodation. But like I said, its mainly those two events that brought the issue to the public eye in Québec, and caused the Hérouxville town to do what it did.

I find it interesting that this town is explicitly targeting muslims, when in Quebec, our muslims community has been pretty mild so far. Maybe the mayor is an active reader of Jihadwatch.

Posted by: Elliot at January 27, 2007 3:21 PM

They should ban the stoning of men and children as well. Islamists have already done both.

Posted by: theoldman at January 27, 2007 3:26 PM

Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ: hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.

Asked whether he fears being labeled a racist, Drouin answers: “We are not racists, we are explaining our culture".

Hooray! this is what western people must begin saying over and over and over. We have a culture that is every bit as valid and important as any other culture (actually, we see the superiority of the western culture in technology, the arts and caring for one another and even for perfect strangers. Westerners are the most giving people in the world.)

Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at January 27, 2007 3:28 PM

Beagle writes:

"Back around the end of the Cold War if you'd told me the main issue confronting the West would involve the stoning of women, mutilation, and face masks I'm pretty sure I would have called you completely bonkers. 2007 sounds so futuristic doesn't it?"

Can anybody cite others who predicted this that far in advance?

Posted by: Steven L. at January 27, 2007 3:32 PM

Elliot, I find it rather funny that you classify the Muslim pop of Quebec as "mild so far". This, despite the pro-Hezbollah marches through the downtown core this summer, the Concordia riots when Netanyahu had the audacity to assume free speech applied to more than just Muslims, the firebombing of UTT...

I guess the term "mild" is purely relative, especially if you compare them with your garden variety suicide bomber. Give them a few more fiery Friday night sermons and I'm sure we'll see some more violence on their part.

Posted by: Michael K. at January 27, 2007 3:51 PM

"I find it interesting that this town is explicitly targeting muslims, when in Quebec, our muslims community has been pretty mild so far. Maybe the mayor is an active reader of Jihadwatch." ... from the post above

First off, according to the article, your town has no muslims, 'mild' or otherwise. Secondly, why does the wearing of a ceremonial emblem, which is not a weapon, but akin to a crucifix or star of david cause this? And why does an issue with Jews and a health club 120 km away in Montreal cause this? Perhaps your mayor is educated and understands history.

Posted by: Infidel33 at January 27, 2007 3:51 PM

Personally speaking, I find it so incredibly pitiful that in 2007 we actually have to define and write up a law that states the stoning of women, female genital mutilation, and the throwing of acid in a woman's face are unwelcome and illegal acts.

And on top of that madness, I TRULY do not understand why feminists are not mobilized to do something about these atrocities against women that flourish all over the Muslim world.

WHEN WILL THIS MADNESS THEY CALL ISLAM FINALLY BE ALLOWED TO COME TO LIGHT IN THE MSM????? WHEN WILL THESE THREATS TO OUR CIVILIZED WAY OF LIFE BE RECOGNIZED BY THE MASSES???

The whole thing makes me so frustrated...

Posted by: JenBee at January 27, 2007 4:06 PM

I am not familiar with Canadian laws, but I am pretty sure that I know what would happen to a town that did this in the USA. The ACLU, along with several Muslim groups, would ask a judge to put an injunction in place against these rules. Several times in the past year, small communities in the US, struggling to accommodate illegal immigrants with housing, education, health care have put in rules to protect themselves, which have promptly been blocked by judges hostile to the idea that citizens in their local communities have any rights. It will be interesting to see if Herouxville faces similar legal blockages.

Posted by: maryrose at January 27, 2007 4:10 PM

God Bless the people who make up a part of my ethnic heritage!

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 27, 2007 4:12 PM

Man I've missed this community. Sort of.

~Michael k

Our muslims are not the ones who made the demands that prompted the french-canadian public to question the concept of cultural accomodation. Meaning, they mostly abide by the rules of the land so far, despite the few incidents you brought up. The pro-Hezbollah stance, the firebombing and the speach at Concordia have nothing to do with cultural accomodation and the doctrine of multiculturalisme, which is what I'm talking about.

~ Infidel

The politicians in Hérouxville could not have made such a move asserting their cultural values unless those values where perceived as under threat by the policy of cultural accomodation. And this perception that our values are under threat was brought about by the demands of the two cultural communities I mentioned, which is exactly what caused a nation-wide debate on the subject. I dont care if the kirpan is a good thing or not, and it doesn't matter than the jewish affaire happened in Montreal, for the repercutions and the ensuing public debate were felt everywhere in the province. Muslims had nothing to do with it. Yet, the mesures in Hérouxville target them.

Why? I dont know, but maybe the folks there are aware of whats going on in Europe and elsewhere. But I just find it funny, and damnit, I stand by that statement.

Posted by: Elliot at January 27, 2007 4:41 PM

This is an encouraging development. I wonder why they chose to ban these specific sharia laws in an ad hoc fashion, rather than ban sharia law in total. (Though note that Quebec, like Ontario, already rejected a version of sharia--personal and family Muslim law). We'll have to wait and see how this plays out. I do suspect the politically correct brigades would have been out in full force to denounce this "racist" ruling had an English Canadian town of the same size had done the same.

Posted by: Kab bin Ashraf at January 27, 2007 4:43 PM

The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as a symbolic function. "

"Kirpan" is a nother name for a dagger. It's a weapon, for god's sake! Who are the sikhs trying to fool?

I say - what reason does a boy in school have to wear one? Is he expecting to have a reasonto use it? And what if someone else takes it away from him to use against others?

Right off - I wonder why a Sikh girl doesn't wear it also? Shouldn't she have a right todefend herself? After all, males aren't always there?

"DISCRIMINATION!" I scream.

And then, I'll say "I'm a citizen with all the rights of the Law, I DEMAND to be allowed to wear one! I DEMAND IT! I MUST have the right to defend myself!"

Posted by: allat at January 27, 2007 4:46 PM

The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as a symbolic function. "

"Kirpan" is a nother name for a dagger. It's a weapon, for god's sake! Who are the sikhs trying to fool?

I say - what reason does a boy in school have to wear one? Is he expecting to have a reasonto use it? And what if someone else takes it away from him to use against others?

Right off - I wonder why a Sikh girl doesn't wear it also? Shouldn't she have a right to defend herself? After all, males aren't always there?

"DISCRIMINATION!" I scream.

And then, I'll say "I'm a citizen with all the rights of the Law, I DEMAND to be allowed to wear one! I DEMAND IT! I MUST have the right to defend myself!"

If you don't allow it, I'll take you to Court!"

Posted by: allat at January 27, 2007 4:48 PM

StevenL

As I said, not me. But I did have a book at the time At Issue: Politics in the World Arena in which Daniel Pipes outlined the rise of Islam as government, violent movement, and political movement. Looking at it again the other day, I was struck by how few of the other aritcles had any bearing on the world as it actually turned out.

Posted by: Beagle at January 27, 2007 4:49 PM

Elliot: By and large, by and large - in a demographic minority. And in majority?

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia.

Those would be example enough, I expect.

Posted by: Geoff at January 27, 2007 4:52 PM

Payingattention:

You aren't paying attention (LOL). The ban also includes the face veil - something not generally illegal under Canadian law.

To the more optimistic posters above:

I'm encouraged (more like surprized) by this, but I'm not breathing a huge sigh of relief that Canada is now safe from Jihad agitation just yet.

First of all, it remains to be seen what will happen next. Given historic Jihadist behaviour one could foresee that some might go so far as relocation to Herouxville just to defy the ban. The ban on the niqab, for example, could be challenged in court as was a ban on the Sikh kurpan some years ago.

Secondly, what is more important than local municipal bylaws, is the effective enforcement of the Criminal Code in cases of violence against Muslim women. I can't remember hearing of a single prosecution for such offences as honor killings in this country - which, hopefully, is a good sign indicating that there haven't been any yet - but if sentencing for such crimes reflects the soft, permissive, politically correct approach of "cultural sensitivity" when and if such things occur here, this would be far more indicative of the state of Canada's counter-Jihad frame of mind than anything in an insular rural place like Herouxville. Keep in mind also that the most significant hate prosecution flap in this country at the moment is the one targetting Campbell Baptist Church in Windsor and Zachariah Anani.

Finally, one would expect a small community like Herouxville to be quite conservative and protective of tradition if only because of small town generic distrust of foreigners, outsiders, etc and of their cultural influences. I wonder if the council of a major city like Montreal, or even Quebec City would contemplate this kind of legislation. The province of Quebec is, in general, one of the more left of centre and politically correct parts of the country, and as we all know, most of the left, at present, is brainwashed with multiculturalism. The Quebec government, in the interest of French language preservation has greatly encouraged the influx of Muslim immigrants from Africa for simply because they are French speaking.

I'm glad to see one place that's mounting an overt resistance, but at this point its only symbolic and of local significance. I live in Alberta, where the two major cities, Edmonton and Calgary, are both currently "boasting" major Islamic building projects.

This country has a very long road ahead.

Posted by: templar at January 27, 2007 4:53 PM

Bolton Interfaith Council, which is made up of Christian, Muslim and Hindu representatives, suggested the idea of Genocide Memorial Day to Bolton Council.

Tony McNeile, secretary of the Interfaith Council, said a general memorial day would be more inclusive of all faiths.

He added: "It does not mean bypassing the Holocaust or ignoring it because it will be included in the memorial day in June. It is one of the great tragedies of the world, but it is not the only one."

Genocide of the Armenians being another. Slaughter of the Khaybar Jews being the first among many to come.

The only genocide the moslems cannot take credit for is the Holocaust which was to be commemorated in Bolton.

If they want to open a HUGE can of worms.. empty out the sceletons in the closet of islam... then by all means.. we should let them do so.

Let them confront something they have done - while they seek to suppress knowledge of something they actually didn't do.

Maybe that's why they want a commemoration of all genocide - they feel left out. Those infidel Krauts should share the spotlight /sarc off.

Do these moslems want to commemmorate all of these events in Bolton?

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 27, 2007 4:54 PM

This French Canadian community has established their stable culture within Canada, value it, and obviously they see the need to warn those who might wish to change it ahead of time. I call that foresight, a trait the rest of the country does not boldly have. This community realises that muslims do not, and will not, integrate into any society that has historically welcomed them, such as they have. Bravo Hérouxville! You got guts.

Posted by: sounder at January 27, 2007 5:09 PM

~ Geoff

Whats your point? What argument are your trying to convey, thats is even remotely related to what I'm saying, namely, that the criticisim of the multicultural doctrine in Quebec was brought about by other communities than muslims? I know what happens when they get the demographic upper hand, I'm not denying that.

Posted by: Elliot at January 27, 2007 5:25 PM

Steven,

"Can anybody cite others who predicted this that far in advance?"

How about 1938? In that year, the French-born British writer Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953) wrote:

It has always seemed to me possible, and even probable, that there would be a resurrection of Islam and that our sons or our grandsons would see the renewal of that tremendous struggle between the Christian culture and what has been for more than a thousand years its greatest opponent. . .

...Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Mohammedan world which will shake off the domination of Europeans -- still nominally Christian -- and reappear again as the prime enemy of our civilization?

...These things being so, the recrudescence of Islam, the possibility of that terror under which we lived for centuries reappearing, and of our civilization again fighting for its life against what was its chief enemy for a thousand years, seems fantastic. Who in the Mohammedan world today can manufacture and maintain the complicated instruments of modern war? Where is the political machinery whereby the religion of Islam can play an equal part in the modern world?

I say the suggestion that Islam may re-arise sounds fantastic, but this is only because men are always powerfully affected by the immediate past: one might say that they are blinded by it.

(From his book, The Great Heresies, 1938)

The book is available on-line for free:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/spok/metabook/heresies.html

Posted by: remote_control at January 27, 2007 5:34 PM

MeanieMo

You forgot to mention the 70-105 million deaths Islam inflicted on India. You can be sure I wont forget to remind people.

I live in a town near Bolton.

PS the "Chamberlain to Churchill in a New York minute." comment you made a week or so ago ... I hope you don't mind but I paste it here and there as I move around the net. Hope you don't mind. I'm also fond of warning Muslims that for all they think they know about bloodshed and death, they haven't seen anything yet, until they've gone up against the British when they've finally lost their patience and gotten pissed off. Then I always add: "Go ask a German". I link that with your comment, for emphasis, you being a German 'n all.

Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at January 27, 2007 5:54 PM

I agree with JenBee above, who wrote:

"Personally speaking, I find it so incredibly pitiful that in 2007 we actually have to define and write up a law that states the stoning of women, female genital mutilation, and the throwing of acid in a woman's face are unwelcome and illegal acts."

I think this village's stand was the wrong stand to take. It's like drawing a line in the sand against intruders -- but drawn well within one's property, thereby conceding territory to them. This stand already, ipso facto, makes a concession to Islamic Sharia law. Canada's and the USA's existing laws already proscribe lapidation for the "crimes" which Islam defines, for Christ's sake!

This village's decision is effectively saying: okay, our outer perimeter of Canadian laws and the Canadian Constitution -- and its Charter which was based upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which contravenes Islamic Sharia law -- are no longer able to keep out Islamic Sharia law, so we better erect another bulwark well inside our property line, so come on, Hérouxvillageois: muster your sandbags and man the bastions against the Muslims who have already infiltrated past our official laws, on which we cannot any longer count!

I think this is absurdly premature and dangerously counter-productive, since it will serve to weaken our extant laws and the sociopolitical fabric of which they are indispensable fibers. What we need to do instead is remind our collective Body Politic -- with persistant prods up its rear end to wake it from its pleasant politically correct nap -- of the laws it already has and the great tradition of liberal progress upon which they are based, which are more than enough to filter out the noxious pollution of Islamic Sharia.

Posted by: remote_control at January 27, 2007 6:07 PM

Thai education system will teach islam.

"PATTANI, Thailand — As part of the military-backed government's efforts to quell violence in the troubled Muslim-populated South, Thai Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said Saturday, January 27, that the government will introduce the teaching of Islam in its education system in the Buddhist country."

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1169744151584&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

Posted by: Madduck at January 27, 2007 6:23 PM

"What we need to do instead is remind our collective Body Politic -- with persistant prods up its rear end to wake it from its pleasant politically correct nap -- of the laws it already has and the great tradition of liberal progress upon which they are based, which are more than enough to filter out the noxious pollution of Islamic Sharia."

Remote, don't you think the town's stance is really a media stunt aimed at doing precicely this? Saying 'you're not defending this country! Get on with it!'

Posted by: Lili at January 27, 2007 6:25 PM

We won't see this in Toronto, or any other town in Ontario. Oakville (where some of my relatives live), won't have a ban on such things anytime soon.

Posted by: wrathofasma at January 27, 2007 6:45 PM

This is a cruel example of Western arrogance and universalism. Apparently it wasn't enough when the British decided to end the practice of suttee. The Western world has been lording it over everyone ever since, trying to impose its own ideas about what constitute barbarous and inhuman practices. Hey, who are they to say? We're all just exactly equal, all cultures of just exactly equal worth.

Andif this Quebec village, this little place, quelques arpents de neige, is to be allowed to do this, then what happens next? Muslims don't tell us we have to circumcise our boys. Why should we tell Muslims in our countries that they should not cut the clitorises of girls. Can't we be tolerant of each other's traditions and "cultural practices"? Can't we all get along?

And where will it all end? The next thing you know, Western countries will be trying to stamp out slavery in the Muslim world. Oh, right, been there, done that. Let me rephrase it, since slavery is permanently legitimiate in Islam. How do I know? The Qur'an tells me so. And it can be found, today, in Mauritania and the Sudan, and even, if you look at some of the advertisements in Saudi papers, and what we know goes on behind the high palace walls of rich (is there another kind?), it continues deep within Saudi Arabia.

Yes. What I should have written is:

The next thing you know, after this act by this Quebec village, the Western powers will be trying to stamp out slavery in the Muslim world -- again.

Posted by: Hugh at January 27, 2007 6:46 PM

I'm going to suggest this at my next precinct meeting, where I live.

It will be interesting to see the response.

Posted by: Voltaire at January 27, 2007 7:04 PM

I'm going to suggest this at my next precinct meeting, where I live.

It will be interesting to see the response.

Posted by: Voltaire at January 27, 2007 7:04 PM

I'm pretty sure I would have called you completely bonkers.
–Beagle

I was thinking something similar when I found myself rooting for Jane Fonda earlier today.

Posted by: pez at January 27, 2007 7:10 PM

Lili, good point -- but the villagers' stand can be taken the wrong way. This reminds me of the time Sarkozy lambasted the slick Muslim apologist Tariq Ramadan on a television debate when the latter, on being challenged about where he stood with regard to lapidation, said in effect that "we must be careful about judging other cultural practices, so perhaps what we should do is declare a temporary 'moratorium' on this while we have a public discussion about what to do". In response to this absurd logic, Sarkozy served up Lamb Kabob à la Tariq by pointing out the screamingly self-evident truth that stoning women to death for the "crime" of adultery is not something to be slated for a "moratorium" pending further "discussion", but is something squarely outside the pale of acceptability, period, end of discussion!

Posted by: remote_control at January 27, 2007 7:17 PM

fucking canadian islamaphobes

Posted by: hierophant at January 27, 2007 7:18 PM

templar-
thanks for pointing out what is going on with the Campbell Baptist Church.

Here's a link

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=465428a2-657b-4732-b12f-e07548dda592

Posted by: Borg at January 27, 2007 7:46 PM

Trevor Wilhelm and Dalson Chen, Windsor Star
Published: Saturday, January 13, 2007
A member of the Windsor Police Services Board says the anti-Islamic lecture held at a Baptist church Thursday night was a hate crime, and he's leading the charge to have the speaker arrested.

Wally Chafchak, also a member of the Windsor Islamic Association, said he and other Muslims and Christians have approached police about the lecture by Zachariah Anani.

"In my opinion, this went far beyond religious discussion and debate," said Chafchak. "In the Criminal Code there is a section that deals with spreading hatred in the community, and I think that's what this is. This instance should fall under those laws. Justice can only be served if this person is charged. He's talking about hate, this person. We will pursue it further until we feel we have our share of justice."

The Campbell Baptist Church on Wyandotte Street West held a lecture Thursday called The Deadly Threat of Islam, with Anani as the guest speaker. Born in Lebanon, he has claimed on Fox News to be a former terrorist who killed 223 people in the name of Islam.

Now a Christian convert, Anani said Islamic doctrine teaches the "ambushing, seizing and slaying" of non-believers, especially Jews and Christians. He said Islam is a religion that worships a god "who strikes with terror."

Pastor Donald McKay, who heads the Baptist church of about 350 members, also called Islam "oppressive" and "vicious."

Chafchak said the Islamic association will hold a news conference today at Windsor Mosque in response to Thursday's event.

Anani said he isn't worried about being charged, because he only drew on facts from the Qur'an, the Muslim holy book.

"What I said was fact," he said Friday.

"I wasn't talking about my own interpretation. I picked facts derived from statements of the book."

Windsor police Staff Sgt. William Donnelly said Friday evening he had no records of formal complaints against Anani.

But he said there are police records of Anani complaining of hate and harassment against himself. Donnelly said Anani complained of receiving threatening letters and phone calls.

Anani said he's had letters stuck to his door, but he wouldn't talk about it any further. Despite giving many public lectures and speaking to several media organizations in the past, Anani said: "I'm not really interested to be famous in newspapers," said Anani.

McKay couldn't be reached Friday evening to respond to the hate crime allegations. But earlier in the day, he said "it's simply not true" that Muslims are peaceful people. The Qur'an, he said, supports his opinion.

"The Muslim is mandated to slay the infidels," he said. "Islam is committed to the domination and destruction of the West. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. . . Frankly, we are frightened to death. We are concerned about the Islamic threat to Canadian security."

Ward 2 Coun. Ron Jones on Friday criticized the lecture, saying: "We here in Windsor will not tolerate that stuff.

"I'm really disappointed with Pastor McKay, as a man I respect. For him to espouse those kinds of things, it's just not worthy of the man himself," said Jones.
Jones said he doesn't have the legal knowledge to determine whether Anani's lecture qualified as hate speech. "I can only speak as a long-time member of the city of Windsor -- one who has faced racism, whose family has faced racism -- that we will not tolerate this kind of thing."

Windsor-Tecumseh MP Joe Comartin said he's concerned that views such as Anani's are being given a platform by organized religions. "It bothers me that this kind of stuff actually gets into the public domain."

As for McKay, Comartin said: "Having a pastor who's willing to spout that kind of bigotry is not something that any organized religion in this country should tolerate ... At its base, it's offensive.

"And for somebody like that to claim that they are speaking from a real Christian vantage point, I just reject that wholeheartedly. It's really regrettable that people who are in a position of authority, like a pastor in a mainstream Christian religion, would do that."

Windsor Muslim Rasha Stino said the Qu'ran has taught her the exact opposite of what McKay and Anani claim the text teaches.

"Islam teaches us we have to say no to hate," said Stino. "We're in a time when a lot of Joe Blows are coming off the street and proclaiming themselves experts when they know nothing about the true faith. Every statement he's made is absolutely false. It's clearly a hate campaign because it's based on false information."

TV SHOW PRAISED

As a practising Muslim, Lila Assiff was initially taken aback by ads promoting a new TV show bearing the title Little Mosque on the Prairie.

"I thought "what on earth?'" said Assiff, a 35-year-old Windsor mother of two. "I thought either they're going to make fun of Muslims or they're going to show people who Muslims really are."

After joining more than two million viewers tune into show's premiere Wednesday night, Assiff gave the CBC comedy two thumbs up. "I thought it was hilarious," said Assiff, who was born in Edmonton after her parents emigrated from Lebanon. "I think it might be a good tool to dispel negative stereotypes."

Little Mosque has been getting buzz for weeks, with everyone from the BBC to CNN running items on the comedy, the creation of Muslim filmmaker Zarqa Nawaz. Much of the attention has focused on the fact that the show is a comedy about Muslims set in a post 9-11 world. Much of the humour stems from paranoid views of Muslims as terrorists.

Ali El-Sharif, spokesman for the Windsor Islamic Association, agreed.

"The show can help people understand that fearing Muslim immigrants means fearing your fellow citizens," said El-Sharif. "Canada is a great country because it is built on hope and respect for others, not fear, hate or intolerance. I hope this show can help promote these proud Canadian values."

-- Grace Macaluso

Posted by: Borg at January 27, 2007 7:49 PM

“We are not racists, we are explaining our culture".

A town of 1300 souls, its not much, but it could be a beginning.

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/01/26/little-mosque-in-the-prairie-review/

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/01/27/australia-preachers-of-hate-terror-run-wild-still/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 27, 2007 8:24 PM

"The next thing you know, after this act by this Quebec village, the Western powers will be trying to stamp out slavery in the Muslim world -- again." --Hugh

E.g., The British, in the late 19th century, under General Charles Gordon (d. 1885), banned slavery (and harsh sharia punishments) in Sudan. The slave-trading Muslim tribes responded to this outrage against Islam by joining up under the leadership of the "Mahdi" (Muhammad Ahmed, d. 1885), defeating and killing Gordon, and reestablishing slavery along with the traditional sharia laws (e.g., death for blasphemy etc.).

(The British reconquered most of the Sudan by 1899).

Posted by: Kab bin Ashraf at January 27, 2007 9:13 PM

" “We are not racists, we are explaining our culture".

A town of 1300 souls, its not much, but it could be a beginning. "

Tsk, tsk. May I remind you that - it is said - "All it takes is a few individuals to change the world."

And it IS self-evident...just look at history.

Posted by: allat at January 27, 2007 9:41 PM

Human experience shows that people, not organizations or management systems, get things done.
-HG Rickover

From an address to Columbia University here:
www.limes68.blogspot.com

Posted by: pez at January 27, 2007 10:28 PM

"Can anybody cite others who predicted this that far in advance?"

Bernard Lewis was noting the rise of Muslim rage very early on, Atlantic Monthly, 1990.

Everyone else I was reading back then kept claiming that there was absolutely NOTHING to worry about. There were all the white-washes--including those provided by Espisito, and that author who wrote a synopsis of civilization (The Millennium by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, 1996 -- completely off the mark, Armesto just wrote how wonderful Islam was and how false all the nay-sayers were -- in retrospect, what a joke Armesto's "predictions" proved to be...I wonder what Armesto has to say now?)

Posted by: J.S. at January 28, 2007 12:35 AM

About Windsor:
Wally Chafchak, a member of the Windsor Islamic Association who stated:" Justice can only be served if this person is charged. He's talking about hate, this person. We will pursue it further until we feel we have our share of justice." Sounds to me as if Chafchak is advising the Windsor Police Chief about how to do his job. That's a violation. Has anyone filed a formal complaint? Get Chafchak off the Board!

Posted by: J.S. at January 28, 2007 12:40 AM

"Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ: hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God."

Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty

Greetings to you in the name of Zeus, Poseidon and Apollo.
And not forgetting Zorro, the fine masked man of the Zorro-astrians.

Just to balance things, I am sure some will agree.

Posted by: pr126 at January 28, 2007 4:02 AM

Merci, Herouxville !

I don't care why they did it. I only care that they had the balls to do it !

No doubt there will be an uproar, Canada is so politically correct it makes me sick sometimes. I applaud Drouin. Maybe every immigrant of whatever religion or race, should be handed a playbook at the border explaining our culture.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at January 28, 2007 7:30 AM

"Stand fast in the liberty"

Too strong.

"pr126"

Cheap

Posted by: Fred at January 28, 2007 8:26 AM

regarding FGM, it is good to tell people that it is wrong, as at

http://www.iccservices.org.uk/news_and_events/updates/fmg_summer_holidays_are_for_fun__not_pain.htm

but we need to prosecute those who commit this offence.
back in 2000, a UK Muslim doctor was 'struck off' for offering to 'perform' FGM, and many doctors have seen the evidence when treating the results of 'traditional' FGM, but i believe that i am correct in saying that we have not yet had a single prosecution in the UK under 2003 and 1985 Female Genital Mutilation Act. (why did we need that legislation when we could have treated it as Grievous Bodily Harm ? for that is what it is !)
it is widely believed that FGM is being committed against hundreds of girls in, or from, the UK each year, and yet we don't seem to be doing any effective to deter it.
prosecute, imprison, deport, let potential offenders understand that there is a price to pay, or else young girls will going on paying in terrible pain and permanently damaged health.

Posted by: M Al-Content at January 28, 2007 8:54 AM

M Al-Content

You are quite correct on this - the BBC's Today programme of all things carried a brief report about it between 3 and 5 years ago. If I remember correctly it said,

"Doctors are concerned about female circumsision of which about 3000 cases a year are coming to the attention of the Health Service. It appears to occur mainly in the Somali community amoung whom it is traditional. Doctors have been instructed to handle such cases sympathetically"

As you may know "Today" is part of the propaganda machine and used to check out public opinion - they get "Leaked reports" on a weekly basis. If the reaction is adverse these reports are dismissed as "Just one view the government is considering" or "A preliminary inquiry" and of course the good old favourite "Not government policy".

I would assume that in this case the authorities were concerned that people were getting to know about it. They wanted to check how many knew and if if they cared. I would guess the reaction told them that nobody much cared so they could just go on pretending it did not happen.

Posted by: Fred at January 28, 2007 10:29 AM

M Al-Content

Second thoughts

This is a bit like the special police squad who have been investigating the reported twelve "Honour killings" of Asian girls (NOT all Muslims) that occur in the UK each year. The only case I can remember getting to court was the very recent one. The family were foolish enough to kill her at a time when the neighbours could hear her screams instead of taking her to Pakistan first.

Posted by: Fred at January 28, 2007 10:46 AM

About FGM in Canada -- I hear if you go to Pakistani Doktors offices (or others), they'll have a price list on the wall for FGM. It's considered an "elective" surgery...thus, Herr Doktor won't get paid by the government (that's under our medical health insurance), but will accept payment from private citizens.

Posted by: J.S. at January 28, 2007 12:59 PM

maryrose:

"I am not familiar with Canadian laws, but I am pretty sure that I know what would happen to a town that did this in the USA. The ACLU, along with several Muslim groups, would ask a judge to put an injunction in place against these rules. Several times in the past year, small communities in the US, struggling to accommodate illegal immigrants with housing, education, health care have put in rules to protect themselves, which have promptly been blocked by judges hostile to the idea that citizens in their local communities have any rights. It will be interesting to see if Herouxville faces similar legal blockages."

I've no idea if there's an ACLU equivalent in Canada, but it seems to me the Quebecois in that village were pretty smart in passing this ordinance. It's not about issues that can be construed as "civil rights," such as housing and jobs.
It's going to be very hard to prove in court that stoning of adulterers and excision of female genital parts are "civil rights" under any definition of that concept, including freedom of religion.
On the other hand, an ACLU type may argue, plausibly, that the ordinance is meant to keep all Muslims out of the community, because of prejudice, and therefore it is discriminatory against an entire group since not all Muslims practice excision, and since how is one Muslim to prove he/she does not practice or condone female genital mutilation. Are the village officials going to require gynecological exams for every Muslim female/child in a family that wants to settle in the village? Are they going to demand a pledge against stoning? How do you legislate against perceived or "expected/projected" offenses rather than real ones, that have happened and have a realistic/empirically demonstrated chance of happening again, in any given community, which is one of the basic principles of common law?

Posted by: ovidius_naso at January 28, 2007 2:23 PM

Canada does have a Canadian version of the ACLU. But the laws in Quebec differ from the norms of English Canada. Two distinct legal traditions here. But, I really don't take this article too seriously. And, I'm sure that any lawyer would make short shrift of it. (The objections could range from the nature of passing laws that are "preemptive" -- I mean, really, you could arrest someone because they turned on the radio and insisted that the person would turn up the volume so as to disturb his neighbors. Preemptive laws -- ridiculous. Similarly, the whole project of imagining certain forms of "criminal" behavior then legislating against it, even though you don't have violators -- what nonsense! Why don't they put a law on the books which bans anyone from sending any other. unsuspecting, innocent individual X off into space, rocketed off, aiming to land said victim on the planet Mercury! Ya, must prevent that from ever occurring! Imagine the horror!! Might want to also ban mirrors in this village...never know how they might be used (arsonists could get their hands on one!!!)

Posted by: J.S. at January 28, 2007 4:17 PM

Mary, may God be pleased with her, the mother of Jesus (PBUH) wore a Veil!
Herouxville's law is unconstitutional. It is against the 1982 Constitution Act, which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Genital mutilation is forbidden in Islam as is any act of violence against Muslim women not wearing the veil. Wearing the veil is a religious duty for Muslim women but enforcing Islamic laws is the duty of an Islamic state. Canada isn't one.
Stoning women to death if they commit adultery is a harsh punishment. It is, however, no harsher than the crime it punishes: an adulterant woman. Imagine this is your wife and she has a boyfriend on the side and gets pregnant from him. The child is born to you and you raise him thinking that he is your son, until one day for one reason or another (a divorce, a DNA test, an astounding resemblance to your wife's boss, etc) you learn that he is not your son. How would you feel? If the married woman knew the severity of the punishment, she would avoid the crime (adultery) and the society as a whole would benefit. Know that this punishment only applies to MARRIED women, not to unmarried women that have sexual relationships without being married.
What Herouxville needs is a few Psychologists for its violence-prone members, not to punish one of Canada's minority for choosing to abide by the teachings of GOD's last revelation to mankind (which happened about 1440 years ago).

Posted by: Ahmed at January 30, 2007 1:57 PM

Just one question, Ahmed:

What happens in Islamic law to the man who commits adultery with the adulterous woman - "your boss" in the hypothetical scenario you ask us to consider above.

If she alleged that his violation of her was rape, she would certainly need at least four male witnesses to that effect (emphasis on "male") to make the charge stick.

That is sexist. Plain and simple.

Yes, adultery causes all sorts of complications in law and all sorts of misery in human lives. It's wrong and should be punished. But not with capital punishment, as Islamic law proposes. The death penalty seems to be called for everywhere in Islam for all sorts of offences - real or imagined. There is no room in any of thus for grace, for reconciliation, for love, for compassion, for the power of forgiveness and the growth of human character in Godlikeness that these traits allow for. Islam seems to propose destruction as the answer to everything.

The point is, as you say, Canada is not an Islamic state, and God willing, it never will be. Yet, at the same time, you seem to wish that it were. And I, as most others who post on this site, can only say in response, "God forbid!"

As for the matter of the veil. I, a Catholic Christian who thinks at least as highly of Mary as you do, know of no tradition that she wore a veil, at least not on her face.

You're free to believe what you feel, in conscience, bound to in regard to Mary, or any other matters having to do with the things of God, but I guarantee that if some terrorist (or any other type of criminal), whether a Muslim or not, someday uses the niqab, burqa, hijab or any other iten of traditional Islamic dress, as a disguise while committing his crime or as a tool for his escape, or even when or if Canadian law begins to contemplate the real possibility that such incidents can realistically be foreseen, then the Charter protection you feel so confident in for all of this is going to evaporate very quickly.

There is, after all, this in the Charter as well: "... subject to such reasonable limitation as may be justified in a free and democratic society" (or words to that effect). What is reasonable is not, and can not, be defined in law, since it depends on changing circumstances, including human behaviour.

To me, much of this veiling comes across, at least as much as it has anything to do with supposed modesty, as being prompted by a desire to intimidate and control, in part by evading identification and, therefore, accountability.

However, as I hope we're both agreed, there is no compulsion in religion. You're free to believe as you see fit, and to practice Islam within this country, although I'd prefer that you didn't, since it does seem to undermine your committment to the laws and values that this country is built on. If you do remain a convinced Muslim, then you should remain in this country and practice Islam only within the limits set by the law and the pre-existing social and cultural practices enshrined in its economy and institutions. If that isn't understood and respected, then it would be better if you chose to live elsewhere, in a society that meets the Islamic standards you feel appropriate. (As a Catholic, I have had to do this because there are a great many laws and practices entrenched in this country that violate my moral principles as well, so what I'm advising you is by no means unreasonable or inappropriate. It is simply that I recognize, based on the promptings of my faith, that there are better ways to address these evils than to stone people, throw acid in their faces or saw their heads off).

That is the meaning of Herouxville's charter. And that is what it means to be Canadian.

Posted by: templar at January 30, 2007 5:26 PM

Sorry. One MORE question, Ahmed.

What rationale do you have for accusing the people Herouxville of being "prone to violence"?

This is at the very least silly, and possibly libelous. This kind of massive hyperinflation of such a trivial matter - a perceived slight, whether real or imagined - does not enhance the credibility of your position. Nothing in the act of Herouxville's council has even had any practical effect yet, and in fact not only has it been known for some time that the events prompting it are not directly related to the Islamic community but it's now come to light that it's not even a ban, a law or any such thing - not even a municipal bylaw as I called it above. It's a document affirming the social principles of the community to provide information to prospective immigrants. Check it out at http://www.cbc.ca/radioshows/AS_IT_HAPPENS/20070129.shtml. Here it is. Straight from the sources.

Such an innocuous measure, and already the Islamic community if the victim of violence?
Get real!

Posted by: templar at January 30, 2007 7:39 PM

Islam doesn't seem to understand the word forgiveness. Maybe there is no word for it in Arabic. I think though that it is not as important a word as insecurity. Insecurity in Islam trumps forgiveness any day. And where does this insecurity come from. The men. Because they believe that Allah commands Islamic men to control their wives, that they have a right to beat her if she displeases him, have sex with her anytime he pleases or kill her if she gets too out of line, they never have to practice any relationship skills. Because they have a superiority complex and act like a bunch of neanderthals, with knuckles dragging on the ground, they are shocked when their wife has had enough abuse and embarks on an affair with another man. What was it Ahmed said?

"The child is born to you and you raise him thinking that he is your son, until one day for one reason or another (a divorce, a DNA test, an astounding resemblance to your wife's boss, etc) you learn that he is not your son. How would you feel? If the married woman knew the severity of the punishment, she would avoid the crime (adultery) and the society as a whole would benefit."

Oh, so it's all about your feelings, you pathetic woos. No such consideration is given to Muslim women. You don't need a wife, you need a self-esteem class down at the local junior college and an electric cattle prod applied smartly to sensitive areas everytime you do something nasty to a woman. And BTW, "if the married woman knew the severity of the punishment," she wouldn't go within ten feet of Islam, Islamic men or an Islamic marriage.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at January 30, 2007 10:49 PM

I inadvertently added a final period at the end of the link I provide above, which renders it a dead end. So, once again, for anyone interested, here's the right one (where you can hear the interview with the councilor who lead the adoption of Herouxville's charter):

http://www.cbc.ca/radioshows/AS_IT_HAPPENS/20070129.shtml

Apologies to anyone inconvenienced by my earlier mistake.

Posted by: templar at January 31, 2007 3:07 AM