Superior Court Justice Babak Barin has “stayed a key provision of the controversial law banning people from receiving or giving a public service with their face covered….. under which people can apply for a religious accommodation to the legislation.
Two key questions immediately come to mind: whose religious accommodations are being considered most? And when does such accommodation violate the rights of the whole population?
First, women are regarded as inferiors under Islamic jurisprudence. They are required (Quran 24:31, Quran 33:59) to cover up lest they be abused. Progressive, conciliatory, modernized Muslim women rail against this. The niqab is a recognized symbol of oppression and an affront to human rights. It is a requirement for women in the most oppressive societies, which routinely practice FGM, child marriage, polygamy and other misogynistic customs.
Second, Canadians have a right to security. The niqab debate has caused divisions in Canada (as have “anti-Islamophobia” initiatives). Many legal controversies have plagued Canada over the niqab issue, involving issues such as testifying in court to voting in elections.
Many have tried to advance the silly argument that people cover their faces in the winter. This fails to take into consideration the fact that when it gets warmer, that face covering is removed.
Quebec’s law was challenged by the National Council of Canadian Muslims.
This is no surprise, but should be expected, as the National Council of Canadian Muslims (former CAIR-CAN) is well known for its lawfare and bullying.
Like its counterpart in the U.S. (CAIR), the NCCM plays the victimology subterfuge with skill, and is a questionable entity at best.
Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s director of communications, Jason MacDonald, once slammed the National Council of Canadian Muslims for “documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas”; but after the NCCM threatened to sue Harper and MacDonald for libel unless they retracted and apologized for the statement, MacDonald ended up stating in a joint statement with the NCCM that he “and the NCCM wish to state that they stand together in their commitment to human rights, pluralism and the condemnation of violence.” This was after a considerable ordeal which included the filing of a defamation lawsuit against the former PM and MacDonald. The resulting statement was indeed a retraction by MacDonald, bullied out of him by the NCCM, but the truth is otherwise:
The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is the NCCM / CAIR-CAN’s parent organization (see ‘parent organization’ p.14). In 2009, the FBI “severed its liaison relationship” with the CAIR after evidence presented in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial demonstrated a relationship between the CAIR and the terrorist organization Hamas. In 2009, Judge Solis also ruled that “The [U.S.] Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR…with Hamas.
The research site Point de bascule has reported about “the Islamist background of the National Council of Canadian Muslims.” The role of the NCCM in various aspects of Canadian politics and political policy needs to be given close attention by all Canadians; freedom is still taken for granted by far too many.
According to Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard:
For reasons linked to communication, identification and safety, public services should be given and received with an open face….We are in a free and democratic society. You speak to me, I should see your face, and you should see mine. It’s as simple as that.
There should be one law for all Canadians and equality for all under the law, period; any religious accommodations should be in keeping with the constitution.
“Judge strikes down Quebec veil ban until province establishes rules for religious accommodation,” by Allen McInnis, The Gazette, December 1, 2017:
MONTREAL — A Quebec judge has temporarily stayed a key provision of the controversial law banning people from receiving or giving a public service with their face covered.
Superior Court Justice Babak Barin ruled today the article will be stayed until the province establishes rules under which people can apply for a religious accommodation to the legislation.
Bill 62 was passed in October and was criticized for targeting Muslim women because they are among the few people in society who wear face veils.
The law included a provision granting accommodations for religious grounds but it did not include the rules under which exemptions could be granted.
Quebec has given itself until next summer to establish guidelines for dealing with requests for religious accommodations.
Barin suggests in his ruling the law is not fully coherent or complete without clear rules establishing how people can be exempted from part of the legislation for religious reasons.
Quebec’s law was challenged by the National Council of Canadian Muslims……
mortimer says
The purpose of the Islamic veiled according to scholars who scoured the original texts looking for clues is related to MONEY…yes, MONEY.
A woman must be veiled so that she will not take MONEY outside the family or outside the clan.
The key to understanding the veil is the word IDENTIFY. If a woman’s face is seen, then she can be viewed by someone outside the family and then desired in marriage. This would end up with the partriarch’s MONEY leaving his family and going to another family.
HADITH Sahih Bukhari 1:4:148:
Narrated ‘Aisha: The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be VEILED,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have RECOGNIZED you, O Sauda.” He said so, as HE DESIRED eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).
The Islamic veil has NOTHING to do with piety or modesty…it is about MONEY only.
Kenin says
Mortimer
Thank you for the Hadith. Could you please tell me how to reach the Hadiths? What do the three numbers (i.e. Sahih Bukhari 1:4:148) stand for? I find it confusing.
mortimer says
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1817&Itemid=89
Virgil says
>Could you please tell me how to reach the Hadiths? What do the three numbers (i.e. Sahih Bukhari 1:4:148) stand for?
1:4:148 refer to Volume:Book:Number
So, Volume 1, book 4, number 148
Navigating hadith is always messy. Different publishers have different sorting systems. e.g.: “Bukhari 2977” is also “Bukhari 4:52:220”
Your best shots at navigating Hadith? Spend several hundreds of dollars purshasing all the books, or slap it in your internet search engine and hope for the best.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Could it not also be about unbridled, raging, jealousy?
I mean, when mohammad was in his prime he only had to glance at another man’s wife and poof, she was his. You can almost hear the terrified voices of the men that GAVE him their wives willingly in order to avoid ending up dead by someone else’s piety.
I’d want to keep my wife covered up under circumstances like that if i’m honest.
Now fast forward 1400 years, give or take, and what you have is a society instilled with the fear created by the tyranny of one hardcase filth bag.
Everyone wants to behave just like Mo, and everyone knows that everyone else wants to act just like Mo.
Act like Mo – see and take other men’s wives.
Stop other men acting like Mo by taking your wife – keep her out of sight.
An oppressive response to an oppressive islamic society….thanks Mo.
J D S says
This s just another reason Islam is still in the middle ages
Oppression is still in style in islam. Without FORCE where would Islam be???
Ted says
The feds in power DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE MAJORITY OF CANADIANS.
Jack Holan says
I am curious if Babek is originally Iranian and Muslim since his 1st Name Babek is Iranian and Muslim since the logic of National Security over covering ones full face does not make sense to him.
katherine says
Whatever he is, it should be understood that Muslims are obliged to support Sharia – NOT western laws – and the same logic works for legal professionals who have wormed their way into the judiciary of western democracies.
It takes an total idiot to appoint a Muslim as a Supreme Court judge in a parliamentary democracy – that’s a coveted position powerful enough to create havoc on Constitutional Law.
Canada is not alone in this predicament : look at Pakistan, Malaysia and the UK where Muslims pursue legal qualifications to infiltrate and undermine the legal system.
There was a time when western-oriented moderates were true to their vocation but today the legal business is just another target for stealth Jihad.
mortimer says
There are many RELIGIOUS practices that are forbidden by law, such as rules that put people’s lives at risk. We do not permit JIHAD to be lawfully conducted in any democractic country.
Islamic veiling is not a religious requirement, but as we see in Bukhari 1.4.148, it is a FAMILY regulation used to enforce MISOGYNY and PATRIARCHY.
Islamic veiling is the MOST PATRIARCHAL and MISOGYNISTIC piece of apparel that exists. Only chains could express the concept more.
mortimer says
Recommended reading on purpose of hijab revelation: http://islamicamentando.altervista.org/the-truth-the-islamic-veil-finally-unveiled/?lang=en
This writer suggests the hijab is about the right of Mohammed’s thugs to rape kafir women … that is how Muslim males understand the ‘hijab verse’ today: An unveiled woman is a ‘whore’ (non-Muslim woman) who is ‘MUBAA’ (licit for sexual use).
Quote from ibn Kathir’s commentary : “In spite of his divine nature and authority, it is pretty clear how Allah himself is willing to accept Muslim men harassing women as a matter of fact, as he’d rather order women to cover themselves than teach the believing men that harassing a woman is absolutely wrong, despicable and should never be done regardless of the woman being Muslim or not. Allah doesn’t point this out, not even barely. He prefers instead focussing on the nature of women as source of “sin and temptation” … The related tafsir from ibn Kathir remarks the idea that Muslim women are to be spotted exactly as “believing women”, so that they can be told apart from slaves or prostitutes and get out of “troubles”. Mister ibn Kathir is definitely not a proper gentleman: if women are veiled they are good believing women, otherwise they are nothing but kafirs (misbelievers), slaves or prostitutes. — http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1817&Itemid=89
Tom says
It must be up to the individual who wants any accommodation to PROVE why they should be given any accomodation that exempts them from obeying a law.
From what I have read the wearing of a face covering by muslim women is NOT a religious requirement and is merely for the purpose of cultural acceptance, and a decision made by the woman or imposed upon her by a husband or other relative.
If it was a religious requirement then ALL muslim women who attend a mosque for prayers would be required to wear a burka or hijab with complete face covering veil, but they aren’t, and most do not wear such a face covering, so the religious requirement is therefore non existent, and it is merely a matter of personal choice.
This ruling must be taken to the Suprem Court.
Don McKellar says
Superior Court Justice Babak Barin…
BABAK BARIN???
Of course… that’s why. How could it be any other way?
The United States is currently plagued by judges appointed by the Obama regime who stand in the way of every Constitutionally correct move Donald Trump makes — until they are struck down by the Supreme Court, as they must be. Here in Canada we seem to have our own version of these corrupt judges. An insidious infection. No doubt their ranks are swelling as I write this.
Brian Hoff says
The Hight Court in america didnot rule on trump travel ban as being constitution they want the appeal courts to finish the legal progress at they level.
Voytek Gagalka says
Pandering to Mohammedans and their sharia. Always. Quo vadis, Canada?
Eur says
Without a veil there would be no Islam, it’s that simple. Without a veil, women would be free, could go unnoticed and not be marked. The veil is a mourning. That is why the veil is so important … because it is a tool of social control, the freedom of a society can be measured by how free women are. In Islam, all are prohibitions and the veil is a way for women to accept those prohibitions.
DHazard says
The veil is not a symbol of Muslim identity. It is a mark of subservience to the authority of Muhammad and the men who enforce it. Only in democratic countries do women consider it a choice, or pretend to.
Wellington says
Bottom line here as I see it: Canada, which as an American I have esteemed and admired from boyhood (as did my American-born father I might add), and which country I have visited innumerable times, is, quite frankly, in deeper, likely far deeper, shit than is America.
Canada over the past century and a half has been one of the most fortunate and finest countries on the planet. But judges like this one in Quebec, and the even greater menace which is the present Prime Minister, are doing their “best” to reverse this great good fortune which Canada has enjoyed due, traditionally, to enlightened Western principles of freedom, respecting which principles Islam is an inveterate opponent of.
And all this for what? For Mo’s stultifying, stupid and malevolent creed? For the oldest and best-disguised totalitarian ideology in history? For this rot? For this decrepit, piss-ass excuse of a religion, Canada is currently immolating itself? No good reason can be proffered.
Further words are deuce difficult to find. I believe I have said a sufficient amount already except to say to all Canadians who cherish, and knowledgeably understand, the historic wonder which Canada has been, I wish you the best, this American does, against the forces of evil (Islam above all others) and of ignorance (Justin Trudeau above all others), which are currently in the process of destroying one of the finest nations the earth has ever known.
So sad. So tragic. So useless. And thus I say, long live a free Canada, which Mo’s followers and an utterly clueless (or is it complicit?) man like Justin Trudeau are doing their best to destroy. For Canada’s sake, for all the West’s sake, for freedom’s sake, they must be thwarted in their endeavors entirely.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Right back ‘atcha, from this Canadian who loves America and all she’s founded on.