Tag: islamism

The Tedious Conformism of Toula Drimonis

Normalizing the Hijab is Unacceptable

2024-07-31

Journalist and antisecularist Toula Drimonis is at it again. She claims that the image of a hijabi at the entrance to Montreal’s newly renovated city hall is just hunky-dory, with no religious significance! On the contrary, the hijab is loaded with religious and political meaning, regardless of whether the woman wearing it is aware.

Sommaire en français Journaliste et antilaïciste Toula Drimonis récidive ! Elle affirme que l’image d’une femme en hijab à l’entrée de l’hôtel de ville de Montréal, récemment rénové, est géniale et n’a aucune signification religieuse ! Pourtant, le hijab est chargé de sens religieux et politique, que la femme qui le porte en soit consciente ou non.

Ce billet de blogue est disponible en français : Le conformisme lassant de Toula Drimonis

If there were ever any doubt about the vacuity of the words “inclusive” and “diverse” when used by antisecular ideologues, that doubt has been dispelled by Toula Drimonis’ latest diatribe “Montreal City Hall’s inclusive gesture is met with anger,” published 2024-07-25 in the Montreal Gazette. Drimonis’ refuses to recognize the duplicity of the choice of image which welcomes visitors to the newly renovated city hall. After removing the crucifix from council chambers in accordance with Bill 21, the new image displays three persons, of whom one is a hijab clad woman.

But, claims Drimonis, this image is not in council chambers, so it “has no influence whatsoever over city hall and civic governance” and “doesn’t represent religion.” Nonsense. The choice of an image of a hijabi is laden with significance, just as the hijab itself has objective meaning regardless of the intention of the woman wearing it. Drimonis herself admits that the image is in line with the “multicultural and diverse” nature of Montreal, blithely ignoring the fact that multiculturalism is a very tendentious ideology, a euphemism for cultural relativism and multi-tribalism. It is incompatible with universalism which is necessary for human rights. But multiculturalism, supported by buzzwords such as “diversity” and “inclusivity,” is the ideology promoted by both Drimonis and mayor Valérie Plante.

This choice of image is a deliberate affront to secularism and to the Quebec population which enthusiastically supports it. It is a declaration that religious affiliation takes precedence over all other considerations. In particular, religions and their symbols are afforded a level of respect and deference beyond all reason and which would never be granted to political ideologies and symbols.

…the hijab is a banner of political Islam, a symbol of rape culture and the subjugation of women […] a stamp of purity…

Does Drimonis grasp the meaning of the hijab? Of course it is a religious symbol, which is reason enough to avoid it in this context. Any partisan display, religious or political, would be unacceptable. Furthermore, the hijab is a banner of political Islam, a symbol of rape culture and the subjugation of women. The hijab, like all variants of the Islamic veil, is a stamp of purity, indicating that its wearer is a good Muslim woman and, more importantly, that any woman—especially a Muslim woman—who does not wear one is impure and deserves to spend eternity in hell. This meaning is independent of the mentality of the woman wearing it. She may be unaware of that meaning, as Drimonis is, or at least pretends to be.

The Islamic veil is odious. To normalize it is unacceptable. To celebrate it, as city hall and Drimonis do, is obscene. As a society we should be taking steps to discourage the spread of such an extremely misogynistic symbol, especially given that that spread is a deliberate strategy of Islamists.

Civil service symbol bans such as those in Bill 21 are a matter of professional ethics. They are just the sort of measure that is required: banning all religious symbols (thus avoiding discrimination) in certain formal circumstances, i.e. when the bearer is an on-duty civil servant or schoolteacher, but maintaining full freedom in other contexts. But Drimonis fails to distinguish between the civic context where the ban applies and the public but non-civic context (e.g. non-employees going about their private business in public) where it does not.

The basis of secularism is the observation that religion and State make for a very bad combination, and that separating them is necessary to protect human rights, in particular freedom of conscience.

Drimonis is notorious for her opposition to secularism in general and to Quebec Bill 21 in particular. She uses a dishonest ploy which is a common among antisecularists: she claims to support secularism while offering a false definition of that term, robbing it of meaning. In an article published shortly after the law was adopted in 2019, she wrote that “true state secularism has nothing to do with the banning of religious symbols.” Yes it does, in certain circumstances. The basis of secularism is the observation that religion and State make for a very bad combination, and that separating them is necessary to protect human rights, in particular freedom of conscience. That freedom includes both freedom of and freedom from religious belief. Bill 21 recognizes that citizens and schoolchildren have a right to civil services and institutions free from religious proselytism, including the passive proselytism of symbols worn by working staff.

Drimonis would apparently allow religions free rein, as if she considered them to be totally innocuous. Is she unaware that, in Islam for example, apostasy is considered a heinous sin? This tenet is utterly incompatible with freedom of conscience. As for those of us who support separation between religion and State because we see religions as potential threats to human rights, which indeed they are if they gain political influence, Drimonis treats us with contempt, as if our attitude were the unfortunate symptom of a mental illness. She displays similar contempt for the rights of schoolchildren to an education free of ideological proselytism.

In Europe, France is in the vanguard of secularism. That secularism is under threat from religious bigots such as Islamists and pious Catholics, and that threat is made much worse by the support of islamogauchistes such as the political party La France Insoumise (LFI).

Here in North America, Quebec is in the vanguard and secularism is similarly threatened. The objective allies of political Islam here in Canada are tedious conformists like Toula Drimonis who are willing to flout schoolchildren’s rights, just so they can claim, self-righteously, that they are defending “stigmatized” religious minorities when in reality they are facilitating religious fanatics. The most fanatical are men whose aim is to normalize the veil and make it practically mandatory for Muslim women. The aim of the hijab is to stigmatize Muslim women who do not wear it.

Next blog: Les critiques de la cérémonie d’ouverture des Jeux Olympiques se trompent de cible

Repeal Citizenship Regulation 17.1.b

Canadian Media Continue to Promote Religious Privilege

2022-03-25

A recent article in The Toronto Star reminds us of the niqab controversy from several years ago, and how Canadian elites supported extreme right-wing political Islam at that time, as they continue to do today.

Sommaire en français Un article récent du Toronto Star nous rappelle la polémique autour du niqab d’il y a plusieurs années et comment les élites canadiennes ont soutenu l’islam politique d’extrême droite à cette époque, comme elles continuent de le faire aujourd’hui.

Never underestimate the fatuity of Canadian mainstream media. There is no way that The Toronto Star can justify its recent publication of an asinine article by Haroon Siddiqui, under the title Will Charest and Brown force the Conservatives to confront their Islamophobia problem?. Siddiqui excoriates the Conservative Party, especially its former leader and prime minister Stephen Harper, for their so-called “Islamophobia,” in particular for Harper’s attempts to prevent the wearing of the niqab at citizenship ceremonies.

We all remember the events of 2015: the religious fanatic, Zunera Ishaq, succeeded in getting the courts to force the federal authorities to allow her to wear a niqab at her citizenship ceremony. This obscene situation, where the strictures of an extremely misogynistic and obscurantist medieval (or pre-medieval) politico-religious ideology were given precedence over common sense, was made possible by two things: (1) dubious Canadian legislation, especially article 17.1.b of the Citizenship Regulations, and (2) the scurrilous Canadian media and political elites who regularly bully anyone who may disagree with their mollycoddling of Islamism by showering them with ridiculous accusations. For example, in a Feb. 16, 2016 article in the Globe & Mail, Gerald Caplan of the NDP declared that attempts to ban the niqab constituted a “demagogic racist campaign against the niqab by Mr. Harper and associates.” The idea that there could be anything “racist” about trying to restrain the spread of political Islam is beyond moronic.

At the time, the Harper government was vilified for opposing so-called “barbaric cultural practices” but such opposition is eminently reasonable. Insisting that women wear the niqab anywhere and everywhere for religious reasons is certainly a barbaric practice, although I would not call it “cultural” but rather “anti-cultural.”

The problem with the Harper government of the day was that it did too little to try to stop Ishaq and her fanatical allies.

The problem with the Harper government of the day was that it did too little to try to stop Ishaq and her fanatical allies. Its efforts were limited to court appeals, i.e. it appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn the 2015-10-05 decision by the Federal Court of Appeal in Ishaq’s favour. The Liberal government of Justin Trudeau, elected only two week later, simply withdrew that appeal.

The Harper government could have done much more, if it had acted earlier. It could, for example, have adopted legislation to repeal article 17.1.b of the Citizenship Regulations, part of the Citizenship Act, which stipulates that the oath must be administered with “the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof.” That stipulation was one of the foundations on which Ishaq’s lawyers built their case.

But of course, the Conservative government would never consider repealing that article, because it would alienate their Christian base who would surely not tolerate the repeal of such an important religious privilege. Thus, Ishaq, Islamists and their anti-Enlightenment dupes were able to benefit from Christian bigotry in order to a further the agenda of political Islam.

The Conservatives favour Christianity because that is their tradition, while the Liberals and NDP favour Islam because it is the current fashion.

All three major federal political parties—Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives—are antisecular, pro-religious and utterly lacking in intellectual integrity whenever the issue of religiour privilege raises its ugly head. The Conservatives favour Christianity because that is their tradition, while the Liberals and NDP favour Islam because it is the current fashion.

Speaking of a lack of integrity, where were all those so-called “secular” organizations in Canada outside Quebec back in 2015? Why did they not all oppose the niqab at official ceremonies as any secularist must obviously do? Allowing such a religious privilege is a clear violation of the principle of religion-State separation as well as a violation of religious neutrality. It must be emphasized that religious neutrality does not mean the State should grant privileges equally to all religions! On the contrary, it means that privileges cannot be justified for religious reasons if such privileges are not also allowed for non-religious ideologies.

If there had been a secular movement in Canada outside Quebec in 2015, that movement would have massively opposed allowing religious privileges at citizenship ceremonies. Similarly, if there were a secular movement in Canada outside Quebec today, in 2022, it would currently be fighting massively in support of Quebec Bill 21 and against the hysterical opposition to that very reasonable legislation.

A Léger Marketing poll at the time of the niqab controversy indicated that 82% of Canadians favoured banning face-coverings at citizenship ceremonies, while the percentage was even higher in Quebec. Thus, so-called “secular” organizations in English Canada are hypocrites who are less secular than the majority of ordinary Canadians.

Next blog: The Patriots of Lower Canada

Quebec Bill 21 for Dummies

Abbreviated Version

2021-12-14

A summary of the basic facts about Bill 21 and the controversy surrounding it.

Sommaire en français
Un résumé des faits essentiels concernant la Loi 21 et la controverse à son sujet.
Ce blogue est aussi disponible en français.

Given that Quebec Bill 21 is in the news again and many misconceptions, misunderstandings and outright lies are being spread, it is time to establish a few important facts. Here is the minimum you need to know.

  1. Bill 21 is law which partially implements State secularism in Quebec and which imposes a very minor, even trivial, restriction on the freedom of expression of some State employees, by banning them from wearing religious symbols on the job. This in no way impacts their freedom of belief. This is done to protect the freedoms of other people: users of civil services and especially schoolchildren. This is basically what all laws do: seek an equilibrium between conflicting freedoms. Bill 21 does a reasonably good job at that, although it is too weak.
  2. Quebec is in the vanguard of secularism in the Americas. Many people in English Canada do not understand this, or refuse to understand it.
  3. Many people and groups oppose secularism for various reasons. But there is one anti-secularism force which is particularly virulent and dangerous: political Islam, which is an international extreme right-wing politico-religious movement, also known as Islamism.
  4. One of political Islam’s preferred propaganda tools is the Islamic veil, which it promotes anywhere and everywhere it can. It has had enormous success imposing the veil in Muslim-majority countries where a few decades ago the veil was rarely seen in cities. By having women wear this propaganda tool, they can play the victim card very effectively. The veil is both religious and political, especially the latter. Its meaning is independent of the mentality of the women who wear it, who are often unaware of the veil’s full implications but feel pressure to conform by wearing it.
  5. Islam and even Islamism enjoy enormous preferential treatment from the so-called left (and increasingly from the centre, like Justin Trudeau), for historical and ideological reasons related to the spectacular success and equally spectacular ultimate failure of Marxism.
  6. Ethnic bigotry against Francophone Quebeckers is a major theme throughout Canadian history. Islamists have greatly exploited it. Anglo-Canadian fear of the Quebec independence movement increased this prejudice in recent decades. English Canada’s hysterical opposition to Bill 21 is largely (but not entirely) a hate-propaganda campaign against the Québécois.

Next blog: La Loi 21 pour les nuls

The Necessity of Quebec Bill 21

A response to the pseudo-argument
“Quebec Bill 21 does not meet any existing need.”

2021-04-26

In the current context of the proliferation of Islamist ideology, Quebec Bill 21 is necessary.

En français Ce blogue est disponible en version française : La nécessité de la Loi 21

One of the popular pseudo-arguments employed by opponents of Quebec Bill 21 is their claim that such legislation is unnecessary, that it does not meet any real need. This bogus argument can be decoded by considering it in connection with another favourite pseudo-argument of antisecularists: that Bill 21 is somehow “discriminatory” and in particular that it “discriminates” against Muslim women.

But first, we must recognize the context in which we live: the proliferation of Islamist ideology.

To grasp fully the issues at play here, we must understand the objective significance of the Islamic veil. The veil, whether it be a hijab, chador, niqab, burqa, etc., is obviously an emblem of radical Islam, that is, Islamism. It is a political uniform and a tool which Islamism uses to infiltrate our societies, a marker of the territory which Islamists seek to occupy, with the complicity of a certain political “left” sometimes referred to as the “Islamoleft,” as well as other partisans of cultural relativism. The veil is also a very strong symbol of misogyny and sexism, as well as an icon of fundamentalist religious obscurantism.

Not to recognize this obvious fact, this objective reality—to claim, on the contrary, that the veil is just a banal article of clothing—is foolish and inexcusable.

We also know that the religious meaning that promoters of the veil assign to this accoutrement is one of purity. That is to say, the veil is a purity symbol which indicates that the woman wearing it is a good Muslim who deserves paradise and, on the other hand, that the woman who does not wear one (especially a Muslim who does not wear one) is impure and deserves to end up in hell. So this is the “choice” the woman faces: heaven or hell.

This objective reality of the veil is completely independent of the mentality or intention of the woman who wears it: she may wear it by choice and be completely unaware of its political significance; or, she may wear it because she is pressured to do so by family or community; or she may be an intentional supporter of Islamism. None of this changes the fact that the veil is a banner of Islamism.

Thus, given this reality, it is obvious that Bill 21 and similar measures which prohibit the wearing of religious symbols by State employees are absolutely necessary in order to counter this Islamist campaign. And to be fair, in order not to discriminate against a particular religion, these prohibitions must apply to visible symbols of all religions.

Therefore, Quebec Bill 21 is necessary and, in addition, it is designed not to discriminate. Thus, two bogus arguments of anti-secularists are entirely debunked. As for the opponents of Bill 21 who continue to use these pretexts, they are either completely mistaken, or they are crassly dishonest.

Next blog: The “Woke” are Not the Political Left

The Swiss Face-Covering Ban is About Deterring Religious Fanaticism

Accusations of racism are dishonest and slanderous.

2021-03-14

Face-Coverings in general impede identification, communication and security. Islamic full veils are even worse, expressing extreme misogyny and religious fanaticism. The newly approved Swiss ban on face-coverings in public is a progressive step to deter such fanaticism.

Sommaire en français Les couvre-visage en général empêchent l’identification, la communication et la sécurité. Les voiles intégraux islamiques sont encore pires, exprimant une misogynie extrême et un fanatisme religieux. L’interdiction suisse nouvellement approuvée de se couvrir le visage en public est une mesure progressiste pour freiner ce fanatisme.

Recently, Swiss voters approved, by referendum, a ban on face-coverings in public, including (but not limited to) the Islamic full veil. To the surprise of no-one at all, this event was met with the boisterous whining of those who systematically oppose restrictions on religious practice, as if freedom of religion should be absolute (especially if that religion is Islam), regularly trumping the rights and freedoms of others.

The Swiss referendum result is good news, although the narrow majority by which the ban passed is disconcerting. Face-coverings cause problems for identification, communication and security. However, Islamic (or should I say Islamist) face-coverings, i.e. full veils such as the niqab and burqa, are particularly egregious and problematic. They are an expression of the most extreme misogyny of fundamentalist, radical, political Islam. They should not be tolerated.

Prevention

The argument that few women currently wear the niqab or burqa in Switzerland is irrelevant. If Switzerland passed a law against slavery, who would complain that it is unnecessary because there are currently no slaves in that country? And yes, I am saying that the Islamic full veil is on a par with slavery. Both are barbaric practices.

The face-covering ban is a preventative measure. If nothing is done, the number of veiled women will continue to increase in future years. Islamists will continue to claim territory by promoting the veil (both hijab and full veil) anywhere and everywhere, asserting that any Muslim woman who does not wear it will go to hell. The veil is a choice, you say? Sure, a choice between wearing one and going to heaven or not wearing one and going to hell. Islamists use the veil in the same way that dogs use their urine: to mark their territory.

Secular Muslims

One of the leaders of the Swiss campaign to ban face-coverings is Mohamed Hamdaoui, a secular Muslim. Apologists for fundamentalist Islam almost never talk about secular Muslims or ex-Muslims. They only talk about pious Muslims who promote the veil, presenting them as victims of persecution, but who are, in reality, religious fanatics. As for women who wear the veil in non-Muslim countries, some are religious fanatics too, but some are forced by pressure from family or community. Face-coverings, including the full Islamic veil, are banned in numerous countries of Europe and Africa, including several Muslim-majority countries.

The assertion that the ban “tells women what to wear” is dishonest. The ban, where it applies to the niqab and burqa, bans a symbol of Islamism which is arguably the most extreme-right-wing movement on the planet. The ban tells no-one “what to wear.” It bans the most atrocious symbol of Islamism in order to prevent its use for politico-religious proselytizing.

The organization Amnesty International has shown itself to be especially unprincipled and cowardly by opposing the Swiss ban, just as it has taken a cowardly position against Quebec Bill 21 (which by the way, does not ban the full veil in public, but only in civil services).

Islamist Propaganda

One particularly dishonest ploy frequently used by opponents of bans on religious symbols is the false equivalence between racial identity and religious affiliation. They claim that such bans are “racist.” This is a blatant lie. Restrictions on religious practices such as the Islamic full veil have nothing to do with race. A Muslim (or an Islamist for that matter) can be Arab, black, white, Indonesian, French, American, Apache or any other “race,” ethnic group or nationality. To conflate “race” with religion is standard Islamist propaganda.

The ban on the full veil is largely motivated by fear of Islamism, and that fear is legitimate. I repeat: it is reasonable to fear Islamism, especially in Europe (although even moreso in Muslim-majority countries). Invoking “racism” in opposition to the ban is also based on fear—fear of racism—and that fear is irrational because Islam is not a race.

Although Islamists do sometimes engage in spectacular physical violence such as terrorism, they do so only occasionally, because it is easier and much less costly to use disinformation. They do not even have to spread such disinformation themselves. They can rely on unscrupulous fools to spread it for them, fools like those who make accusations of “racism.”

It’s about religion, stupid.

It’s about religion, not race. Even if all Muslims in Switzerland were black or brown and all non-Muslims white, that does not change the fact that the issue here is fundamentalist religion and everyone knows that. The dishonest conflation of race with religion greatly confuses the issue and slanders those who support reasonable measures such as this face-covering ban. To those who oppose the ban, I suggest they try to come up with rational arguments for their position, if they have any, rather than indulging in slander.

Anyone who conflates race with religion is incompetent to deal with either. Anyone who conflates them deliberately is lying in order to promote a political agenda.

The wearing of the full veil such as the niqab and burqa is an extremely retrograde practice, an implementation of the subjugation of women. Banning full face-coverings in public is one small and reasonable step that can help to put a break on the advance of radical Islam in Europe. Banning the wearing of all religious symbols for civil servants and schoolteachers while on the job (but not everywhere in public) is also a good measure.

Balancing Conflicting Freedoms

Restrictions on religious symbols do not interfere with freedom of belief but only with freedom of religious practice, because that practice, when done in public, can and does sometimes compromise the freedom of conscience of others. Freedoms are not absolute. The challenge is to find an equilibrium between freedom of religion and freedom from religion, an equilibrium between the freedoms of some and the freedoms of others.

Suggested reading:

Next blog: The “White Supremacism” Scam

Another Notch Lower for Canada

Canada Continues to Pander to Political Islam

2019-08-21

Another small example of how Canadian institutions pander to political Islam by normalising the veil which is a symbol of Islamist misogyny.

Sommaire en français Un autre petit exemple d’une institution canadienne qui affiche sa complaisance à l’égard de l’islam politique en normalisant le voile, ce symbole de la misogynie islamiste.

I recently came across the following Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) news story on a Government of Canada website: CAF welcomes first Muslim female chaplain and chaplain candidate. The article is neither very recent nor very old—dated 2018-04-12. It got my attention because it shows, yet again, that our Canadian government and its various institutions have the nasty habit of identifying Muslim women with the Islamist veil, as if the former could not exist without the latter, which is exactly what proponents of political Islam would like us to think. Such a false identification renders more moderate Muslim women—those who do not wear the veil—effectively invisible.

The following group photo is taken from the article. There is no need to indicate which person is the Muslim female chaplain to whom the article’s title refers.

Photo from linked CAF article
Click to enlarge
Photo from linked CAF article

The article informs us that this new chaplain “has extensively studied theology and counselling, and is currently enrolled in a Doctor of Ministry program jointly offered by the University of Toronto, the Toronto School of Theology, and Emmanuel College.” We also read that her appointment to this position is part of the chaplain service’s “initiative to increase diversity and improve gender balance.”

Leaving aside the question of just what, if anything, is the value of an education in the vacuous discipline of theology—the study of a hypothetical entity both nonexistent and unknowable—the article’s reference to “gender balance” is very telling. One can assume that the intention is to foster gender equality, but the means chosen to do so borders on the hypocritical. If the CAF were truly concerned about gender equality, they would avoid promoting the highly misogynistic Islamist veil worn by the new chaplain in the photo. She would instead wear the same military uniform as everyone else, with the same head-covering, or absence thereof, as everyone else.

This is of course only one small example in a long series of such capitulations to political Islam. I have discussed similar cases in three previous blogs:

In all these cases, we have a situation where an institution has internalized one of political Islam’s favourite strategies: the rhetoric of inversion. An expression of the subservience of women, the Islamist veil, one of the worst products of patriarchy, is presented as a choice or a right, even an expression of freedom! Thus, we have the Orwellian situation where reality is overturned and a symbol of the servitude and inferiorization of women is re-branded as a positive good. This is exactly what Islamists aim for: to normalize one of their most important propaganda tools.

Next blog: There is Nothing Friendly About Hemant Mehta’s Gross Ignorance

This Does NOT Promote Child Health

2019-08-16

In this blog I criticize the decision of the editors of a paediatrics journal to use a photo of a veiled girl on the journal’s cover.

Sommaire en français Dans ce blogue je critique la décision prise par la rédaction d’une revue de pédiatrie de se servir de la photo d’une fillette voilée pour faire la couverture de cette revue.

It has come to my attention (via a tweet from Ensaf Haidar) that a recent issue (July 2019) of the academic journal Paediatrics & Child Health, Journal of the Canadian Paediatric Society, published by the Oxford University Press, featured a photograph of a young girl wearing an Islamist veil as shown in the accompanying image. (Here I use the word “Islamist” instead of “Islamic” for reasons explained in my previous blog.)

Paediatrics & Child Health, Vol. 24, #4, July 2019
Click to enlarge
Paediatrics & Child Health
Vol. 24, #4

Why would the editors of a paediatrics journal choose a photo of a veiled girl, given that the veil is a flag of an international far-right political movement? The kindest thing that can be said about this choice of cover photo is that it is airheaded fashionable nonsense. The editors have obviously fallen under the influence of the identitarian, islamophilic “left” and their centrist emulators, who are obsessed with religious minorities, especially Muslims, and therefore act as if Muslims can do no wrong, even when it is a radical fringe of fanatic Islamists who are setting the agenda, pretending (falsely) to speak for all Muslims.

Using a cover photo of veiled female of any age, as if such a phenomenon were perfectly banal and ordinary, is bad enough. After all, the Islamist agenda is to promote the veiling of females anywhere and everywhere, regardless of circumstances, with the goal of rendering the veil just that: banal and ordinary, that is to say, to normalize it, to make us forget just what a disgusting icon of women’s subjugation it is. But to use a photo of a minor, especially for a journal devoted to children’s health of all things, is inexcusable!

In my writings I have already pointed out several times that imposing the Islamist veil on a child for any extended period of time (weeks, months, years) is a form of child abuse and should be illegal. Even if the child wears the veil of her own volition, that does not change the situation: after all, we do not allow children to make their own decisions about many things, and I would suggest that wearing such a retrogressive symbol should be one of those things.

As I wrote in a previous blog discussing a similarly unacceptable photo used by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, “The consequences of wearing the veil are very serious for a young girl. There may be negative physical effects (such as Vitamin D deficiency or an impediment to the child’s normal physical activity), but the most grievous consequences are psychological and social. When the person wearing the veil is a child, the social segregation is much more serious, depriving the young girl of a normal childhood and erecting a barrier between her and other children.”

Of course I do not know the context in which the cover photo was taken. Perhaps the girl wore the veil only for the duration of a photo shoot, in which case no harm has been done to her personally. Nevertheless, the use of such a photo for a paediatrics journal remains dubious at best and arguably harmful. Indeed, it is literally unhealthy. It is an affront to children’s physical and mental health, especially the latter.

In fact, I would say that any paediatrician who accepts the long-term veiling of young girls lacks the ability to deal competently with the psychosocial development of children.

Next blog: Another Notch Lower for Canada

Summary: The Islamist Veil

2019-08-12

A summary of my analysis of the implications of the Islamist veil.

Sommaire en français Un résumé de mon analyse des implications du voile islamiste.

For future reference, I have decided to summarize here an analysis of the Islamist veil and its implications. I could call it the “Islamic veil” instead, but the word “Islamic” applies to Islam in general. However the veil is much more closely associated with the fundamentalist and radical variant of Islam known as Islamism or political Islam, and it is for that reason that I refer to it as “Islamist.” That veil is, after all, a political symbol even more than a religious one. It comes in several versions of course: hijab, chador, burkini, niqab, burqa, etc. This blog summarizes and builds on my previous blog Notes on the Islamist Veil.

Some essential points:

  • The Islamist veil, in all its forms, is an advertisement for political Islam, regardless of the mentality of the woman wearing it.
  • The Islamist veil is imposed by fanatics. It is not an article of clothing for Muslim women in general—but Islamists would like us to think that it is!
  • Most women who wear the Islamist veil, especially in Muslim-majority countries, do so because they are in some sense forced to do so, as they are under severe pressure from family, community, fundamentalists and sometimes the law. The consequences of not wearing it can be life-threatening.
  • Those women who decide to wear the Islamist veil willingly, mainly in non-Muslim countries, are implicitly expressing solidarity with political Islam, whether or not they are conscious of the implications of their decision. Such women are objectively allied with religious fanaticism.
  • The Islamist veil is a marker of segregation, keeping Muslims separate from other “inferior” people. It also sends the message that religious affiliation (for Muslims) is more important than other attributes.
  • The Islamist veil is a purity symbol, a form of slut-shaming. Wearing it means that other women who do not wear it, especially Muslim women who do not wear it, are impure, i.e. “easy.”
  • The Islamist veil is an expression of rape culture. It implies that women are responsible for the sexual excesses of heterosexual men.
  • The Islamist veil is not just an article of clothing. To treat is as such is to empower the religious fanatics who use it for proselytism and propaganda.
  • The Islamist veil is a tool to control women’s bodies.
  • Proponents of political Islam use veiled women in the same way that dogs use their urine: to mark their territory.

In summary, Islamists treat women in general with contempt and they use veiled women in particular as tools for their political purposes. Recall that Islam is arguably the most misogynistic of all major religions, and that political Islam is a fundamentalist variant which takes that misogyny to an extreme.

Finally, it must be emphasized that all of the above observations about the Islamist veil apply regardless of the mentality of the woman flaunting it. The objective meaning of the veil does not depend on the thoughts of the bearer. She may be naïve, she may be totally unaware of the implications of the accoutrement she has “chosen” to display or been forced to display or, on the other hand, she may be fully cognizant that she is effectively supporting political Islam. In all cases, she is just one more veiled woman, one more walking advertisement for one of the most dangerous extreme right-wing movements on our planet.

Thus, the wearing of the Islamist veil should be discouraged and it should be banned where appropriate to do so. There are three main contexts (this list may not be exhaustive) where banning is appropriate:

  1. Wearing religious symbols—including all versions of the Islamist veil—by public servants, i.e. State employees, while on the job, should be banned.
  2. Imposing any Islamist veil on a child for any extended period of time (weeks, months, years) is a form of child abuse and should be illegal.
  3. Versions of the veil which obscure the face, i.e. the niqab and burqa, should, like all face-coverings, be banned in any situation where covering the face compromises security, identification or communication. This includes at least situations where security checks are performed, such as in airports or at entrances to some public buildings. However, there are further reasons why the niqab and burqa should be resisted, as these veils represent a violation of human dignity and women’s rights. Extending the ban to everywhere in public is an option to be considered.

In other situations, the wearing of the Islamist veil should be tolerated for reasons of personal freedom, but it should be neither endorsed nor encouraged—and certainly not celebrated as some governments (such as Canada) foolishly do.

Next blog: This Does NOT Promote Child Health

CHRC Endorses Religious Child Abuse

The Canadian Human Rights Commission, Complicit with Political Islam

2019-04-22 2019-04-23: Small correction

Ce blogue est aussi disponible en version française : La CCDP endosse la maltraitance religieuse des fillettes

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has chosen the image below to present its 2018 Annual Report to Parliament. This image is revolting on several levels.

Image used by the CHRC
Image used by the CHRC to illustrate its slogan “Speak Out.”

By choosing this image to illustrate the theme of human rights, the CHRC shows a degree of negligence which is inexcusable. The image sends a message which is completely incompatible with human rights, for several reasons:

  • First of all, it is common knowledge that the veil is a banner of political Islam and that promoting the wearing of the veil anywhere and everywhere constitutes one of the most important strategies of that far-right movement to impose its obscurantist ideology. The veil is a tool for segregation. Its purpose is to isolate women from men, to isolate Muslim women from non-Muslims and, most of all, to promote an image of Muslim women as monolithically very pious, even fundamentalist, in order to render invisible those Muslims who practice a more open and less strict variant of Islam.
  • The person wearing a hijab in the photo is a very young girl. Forcing a young child to wear the veil for any extended period of time—weeks, months or years—harmfully isolates the child and constitutes a form of child abuse which should be illegal. The consequences of wearing the veil are very serious for a young girl. There may be negative physical effects (such as Vitamin D deficiency or an impediment to the child’s normal physical activity), but the most grievous consequences are psychological and social. When the person wearing the veil is a child, the social segregation is much more serious, depriving the young girl of a normal childhood and erecting a barrier between her and other children.
  • No child can consent freely to such attire. When the wearer is an adult, such a choice is unfortunate, but if her choice is freely made then it must be respected—provided, of course that she does not wear the veil while working as an employee of the State as a teacher in a public school. However the situation is completely different for a child: it is utterly unacceptable to impose such attire on a child who is too young to understand the implications of such a religious symbol. The child thus becomes a victim of abuse by those who force her to wear it.
  • The above photo was apparently taken during a demonstration (October 2018), in the streets of Montreal, against Quebec Draft Bill 21. That demonstration was anti-secular and included a strong participation by Islamists.

The CHRC is an agency of federal parliament whose mission is to monitor and protect human rights. And yet, it has endorsed a retrograde symbol of political Islam and at the same time endorsed child abuse of young girls in fundamentalist Muslim families. Their choice of photo is entirely unacceptable. I agree completely with Djemila Benhabib who recently made the following declaration on social media:

Shame on the Canadian Human Rights Commission @CdnHumanRights which illustrates its 2018 Report with the photo of a small girl wearing a veil, with her fist raised. This is terribly shocking and repugnant. You thus legitimize the exploitation of children by political Islam. This scenario is even more scandalous given that the photo was taken at an anti-CAQ, anti-secular demonstration in the streets of Montreal organized by Islamists among others.

Next blog: Children’s Rights Before Teachers’

Support #NoHijabDay #FreeFromHijab

Support #NoHijabDay #FreeFromHijab! 1st February 2019 Solidarity with Iranian and Saudi Women.

Post a photo of yourself, on social media, with a headscarf hanging from a stick.

Appuyons #NoHijabDay #FreeFromHijab ! 1er février 2019 Solidarité avec les Iraniennes et Saoudiennes.

Poster une photo de vous, sur les réseaux sociaux, avec un foulard suspendu à un bâton.

#NoHijabDay #FreeFromHijabClick to enlarge

#NoHijabDay #FreeFromHijabClick to enlarge


“World Hijab Day” is soft-core propaganda for Islamism. Do not be duped. The hijab is an ambulatory prison for women.

La « Journée du hidjab », c’est la version légère de la propagande islamiste. Ne soyons pas dupes. Le hijab est une prison ambulatoire pour la femme.

Next blog: Three Strategies of Islamists