Let's make ALL the girls and women wear niqab, RIGHT?!

Now that I have your attention, my point is that Harper and the CPC are cravenly using the niqab to push hot buttons during this election.

The political cartoon above suggests the niqab issue will provide Harper with a "wind at his back" which he needs desperately needs to win the election race.

There are dozens of institutions that oppress women.  The niqab is the least of them but Harper's Attack Dingo™ Lynton Crosby has found one with formidable scaremongering OPTICS, right?

Susan Delacourt unpacks CPC doublespeak with regard to the niqab.

Rational people and critics of Harper's regime nail what the CPC tactic obfuscates:

This happened north of Ottawa last week. Basil Borutski 'allegedly' executed three women. How can this still occur, in Ontario, in 2015?

“Our systems need to try to pick out these warning signs sooner and do everything we can to provide safety and security,” [Illingworth] said. “There are absolutely gaps.”

The province’s Domestic Violence Death Review Committee, which works with the coroner’s office to review every domestic homicide in Ontario over more than a decade, has compiled a list of risk factors that “indicate the potential for lethality” within relationships or, to put it another way, a check-list to figure out the likelihood that an abuser will kill his partner.

Most of the boxes would be ticked off when it came to Borutski: a history of violence, an escalation of violence, obsessive behaviour, unemployment, isolation of victims and victims having an “intuitive sense of fear.”

From here:

Leighann Burns, the executive director of Ottawa women's shelter Harmony House, said many women feel that abusive men are not monitored closely enough after being released from jail, and that conditions placed on those who are released can, in some cases, easily be ignored.

"We hear from women routinely that the offences that men commit against them are not treated seriously in the criminal justice system," Burns said.

"Somebody who is lethally violent, who has clearly got no respect for the system or any sanctions that are meted out — there's not much that can be done, other than to lock him up or keep her hidden," she said.

So, probation officer are overworked, likely because of a large client load which, at the risk of provoking shrieks from Babs Kay, I will guess is 90% male offenders.

Remember Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti Shafia, 13, along with Rona Mohammad Amir, 50? Their bodies were found in the family’s Nissan, submerged in the Rideau Canal on June 30, 2009. The family members who killed them were able to "justify" their murders using the same twisted patriarchal ideology that motivated Borutski.  

Women "provoke" their murderers by defying the Gawd-given control entrusted to men to extract resources from women.  If women and girls refuse to provide men with what they want and demand, they're disposable.  They can be threatened, harmed, damaged, tortured and killed with impunity.  That chilling premise is the core of patriarchal extremism throughout the world.

So, the niqab? Just as oppressive as Harper's Hard-On Crime regime of venal liars who did NOTHING during their 9 years in government to make Canada safer for women and girls.


For a rueful chuckle to end my pessimistic rambling, check out my co-blogger's post about #CdnNiqab as well has the photos that folks posted on Twitter.

Of Hijabs, Burkas and Haircuts ...

At DJ! we have approached the question of women wearing religious coverings in the same manner that we consider the sexual violation of women and children, femicide, access to abortion, and the eradication of female genital mutilation.

How does it affect women facing these situations, what have women with knowledge and experience said and how can we support leurs revendications?

We have also pointed out Islamophobia in all its overt and covert forms.

Thus, we're perplexed that this complaint has not been challenged by other women.

Could it be that there's a fear of being slagged for being un-progressive, sexist and homophobic for not supporting Faith McGregor's grievance?

[...] a woman with a penchant for men’s hairdos walked into the Bay St. Terminal Barbershop. Faith McGregor asked the male barbers if they offer the “businessman cut” and, of course, they do but when it became clear she wanted the cut for herself the men demurred, saying their Muslim religion forbids them from touching women who are not their relatives.

Almost immediately, McGregor filed a human rights complaint with the tribunal, saying she felt like a “second class citizen.” Later, on a point of principle, McGregor declined the barbershop’s offer of a haircut from a different barber.

Life in Toronto is already complicated, with gridlock, unaffordable housing and Rob Ford’s football schedule, and now we have to contend with this?

In the barbershop case, a wise coach, or adjudicator, would say that both rights must be accommodated. So here’s a solution that won’t require months of testimony before a quasi-judicial hearing: In the future, barbershops whose staff have particular religious restrictions must ensure they can serve all clients by hiring a person with different beliefs or by offering an appointment with a fill-in barber willing to do the job.

Even better, here’s another way out: Let market forces prevail by giving your $20 polymer bill to a welcoming barbershop down the block.

How would an Ontario Human Rights Commission resolution - in favour of McGregor's demand - advance in principle or improve in practice the status of women in Toronto or anywhere, whether they're lesbians, muslim, or struggling to survive in a misogynist world?

There are many battles worth fighting but I don't see how this one is valid.

Like knee-jerk legislation here and elsewhere that forbids niqab face coverings, I sense that this complaint veils a deliberate expression of islamophobia.

UPDATE: Information about the business in question. Mixed reviews from the male clientele, it would seem.

Compare and contrast

As fern hill pointed out here and also here, Jason "Vatican Taliban" Kenney's self-righteous little shrieeek about the niqab was an opportunity to attack the Charter of Rights. It was as well a dog-god-whistle to their reformaTory islamophobic base supporters as well as a CPC-engineered media diversion away from *Airshow* MacKay.

Funny, isn't it? Especially when you consider who are those who completely cover their faces - and routinely remove their badges - in the exercice of their roles during *Security Theatre* multi-million dollars performances.

It's why we call Contempt Party members Con Jobs.

Addendum: Read Tabatha Southey's thoughtful piece about women's right to choose how to clothe oneself and what those choices communicate.

More on stripping women . . .

Speaking of forcibly stripping women. . .

Sheema Khan writes eloquently about this week's Bright Shiny Thing -- barring niqab-wearing women from taking the Canadian citizenship oath.

She winds up with an anecdote that some may not have heard.

Inas Kadri had her niqab torn off by a woman in a Mississauga mall in the summer of 2010. The incident did not shake her faith in Canada. Rather, she re-evaluated her role as a citizen: “Living with people in this society, I think I should work harder to educate people about my religion.” Fellow niqabi Sana Mutawi summed it up best: “We want our kids to be brought up in an understanding community, so they will be good citizens.”

Hate the niqab all you want. But banning it is not a Canadian value.

More than that, banning something helps to demonize the custom or the wearers, enabling pointless violence in suburban malls.

And speaking of pointless, spiteful violence. . .

OccupyMelbourne protesters had camped out in a park. Told that was against the law, a few cheeky buggers decided to wear their tents as clothing.

That was a bit much for the bully-boys. This happened on December 5. Watch.




Ban, demonize, harass, it's all good, when you are in charge of keeping the uppity [insert derogatory epithet] down.

Those Pesky Rights Thingies

When barbarians invade our legislatures and pass rights-crushing laws, our only recourse is the courts.

In the US, ReThuglicans have been merrily enacting laws intended, at the very least, to chip away at women's reproductive rights, and in the cases of 'heartbeat' laws to confront Roe v. Wade directly.

But some ReThugs may be having second thoughts about the astronomical costs of defending them in the courts. Especially since they usually lose on constitutional grounds.

As Republican-majority legislatures this year have passed new limits on abortion, some states are now paying mounting cots for litigation as those laws are challenged on constitutional and other grounds. The American Civil Liberties Union has promised to sue if the [Ohio] heartbeat bill passes.

The article goes on to detail some of the costs already incurred and funds being set up to defend new laws.

Naturally, the Fetus Lobby is unfazed by millions of taxpayer dollars blown on indefensible attempts to infringe on women's rights.

One goes further -- blaming the victims.

Mary Kay Culp, state executive director at Kansans for Life, noted that no state money would have to be spent if groups like Planned Parenthood didn't sue.

Bad Planned Parenthood! Bad American Civil Liberties Union! Forcing states to pony up to protect the fantasies of the Fetus Lobby!

And of course, as any Canadian CBC-hater will tell you, using ALL taxpayers' money. Even those who don't agree!

Meanwhile, in the formerly sane country now known as Harperland, Jason (Promoter of Vatican Sharia) Kenney is handling this week's Bright Shiny Thing File with his proposal to strip niqab-wearing women.

Is he worried about legal consequences?

Heck, no.

Speaking on CHQR, a Calgary-based Conservative radio show Monday morning, Mr. Kenney said he isn’t worried about legal objections to the ban.

“I’m sure they’ll trump up some stupid Charter of Rights challenge. That’s democracy. They’re welcome to object,” he told host Dave Rutherford.

Not only 'bad' Charter of Rights. 'STUPID' Charter of Rights.

This is how the 1% thinks of the rest of us. Bad and stupid when we try to assert and defend our rights.

The only way I can think of to fight back is to donate to the fighters.

Faux-secularism and Christian Talibans

In the wake of Contempt Party leader SHithead's odious fear-mongering about *Islamicist terrism*, reaction to the Republican ParTea's ersatz debate last evening is note worthy.

Mona Eltahawy observed on Twitter that the Christian zealots chasing the Republican ParTea nomination for US president were as overtly religiously fanatic as any member of the Muslim Brotherhood she has interviewed.

Check out the responses on Twitter; the hashtag is #Tebate

Meanwhile, over in ostensibly secular France which has taken extreme legal measures to ban public wearing of the niqab and burqa, politician and career bureaucrat Marie-Luce Penchard displays her religious allegiance - a talisman against those errant European Islamophobes who assume that all brown-skinned folks are Ay-rab immigrants.

Some last words to chew over the next days of glurge and mawkishness - with the exception of the brilliant Radio-Canada series Portraits du 11 septembre, here.

“The 10th anniversary of [September 11] should be a time for reflection on how we can build a more inclusive society to end extremism,” NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar [...] “Let’s all guard against knee-jerk demonizing and overheated rhetoric.”

Added: Antonia Zerbesias' brilliant observation that more Canadians will die as a result of air pollution than as *victims of Islamicism*. And the SHithead government continues its clear-cut-and-burn campaign at Environment Canada.

Bonus: Alison at Creekside. hahahahaha! Steve kicks off 9/11 blather week.

Who's Nuttier?

Here in Canada our rightwingnutz go insane over people dressed like this:



While in the US, a judge just ruled that people can VOTE dressed like this: