Most Canadians want niqab banned in public, poll suggests

MONTREAL — Most Canadians believe the Muslim face covering known as the niqab should be banned in public, and even more think it should be removed at citizenship ceremonies, a new poll suggests.

The Leger poll, for the Association for Canadian Studies, indicates 70% of respondents agree with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s strong view against wearing the niqab while taking the oath to become Canadian.

Canadians agreed with the prime minister 70%, according to the Leger poll taken Tuesday to Thursday.

And 60% of the 1,711 respondents went even further, agreeing “the niqab should be banned in public spaces”

Share
  • Dana Garcia

    When you see someone in a mask, you assume they are up to no good.

    • Justin St.Denis

      Always.

  • pop

    Yes, as a woman I find it offensive.

    • Justin St.Denis

      As a man with a nose, I find it offensive. Those bags ain’t made of fine cotton!

  • Jay Currie

    Bigots. They should respect the flag of Islam.

    Nothing says conquest like stuffing your wife or daughter in a bag.

    • eMan14

      Plus they are the handy quicker picker upper people.

  • eMan14

    I would have voted the same way if given the opportunity.

  • Warren Raymond

    Its not about Stephen Harper’s “strong views”. Its about EVERYTHING!

  • Barrington Minge

    Why not ban them anytime. anywhere?

  • bob e

    well .. how do they do it in qatar .. ?? we should ask our friends

  • canminuteman

    Nobody should be around to walk around in public with a mask on. I suspect that no one was allowed to walk around in public with a mask on (or if their were legally allowed, their neigbours would have told them to take it off and grow the f up). But that was in the dark ages of Canada, we are soo much better now.

  • pdxnag

    Accept it for what it is (among many meanings): Islamic supremacist garb meant to differentiate the special folks from the less than special folks, mandated by the inherently violent and immutable Koran as the Muslim faithful proceed with their conquest.

    They are not citizens of anything other than the Islamic Ummah. Treat them accordingly. If you do not want the niqab then you must expel the Muslims, expel the unassimilable Muslim horde.

    (Of course, that is just my opinion.)

    • Justin St.Denis

      But a stray flame from a Bic and POOF! Your average garden-variety niqab wearer makes a dandy standing torch!

      • pdxnag

        While it is a flag of Islamic supremacism it is not a military uniform. (Generally, except for fleeing soldiers).

        • Justin St.Denis

          I would argue that in an ideological war like the one in which we are currently engaged, these are footsoldiers, pure and simple. My comment was partially flippant, but maybe not so much after all.

        • paendragon

          No, it’s not a military uniform – it’s a uniform mobile prison.

          😉

  • Achmed

    We make up 4% of the population (and growing fast) and that is enough to turn any close election race in a riding. That is expected to rise to 10% in about 15 years and that is enough of a voting block to decide who becomes Prime Minister in just about any election.

    So you might get lucky in this year’s election but it won’t last long at all.

    • Justin St.Denis

      Fuck you, AcheHead

    • k1962

      Not unless more people wake up to our new reality (nightmare) and do something to stop immigration from muslim sh*tholes. It’s quite obvious that the diversity you bring isn’t so great and that’s an understatement.

    • Freedom

      Try and remember which culture imports it’s scientific advances and which culture lands men on the moon.

  • favill

    you folks really have no idea on how to change behaviour. for those of you over 40 think of how your parents discouraged you from doing things they deemed bad. now how would you use that idea with women who dress in a niqab or burka? perhaps the same way moose-limb men treat Western women in France, Denmark, Sweden etc? i am starting to believe that western civilization’s saviours are going to be the men from the criminal class–possibly those in biker gangs and the like–kinda like darryl from the walking dead.

    • k1962

      Yep.

  • robins111

    If this doesn’t stop, Justin will have to resign from parliament due to constant episodes of the vapors

    • Justin St.Denis

      Turdeau as “Little Queenie”? That shoe sure seems to fit ShinyPony to a “T”.

  • WalterBannon

    It should be banned, along with all the people who would wear it

  • paendragon

    Why are you taking a poll about people’s uninformed opinions? Why not just consult the Qur’an?

    HERE ARE THE FACTS ABOUT WOMEN COVERING UP IN ISLAM, ACCORDING TO THE QUR’AN, AHADITHS, AND SHARIA LAW ITSELF:

    Here’s everything you never really wanted to know about female head-coverings (hijabs, niqaba, and burkas) as officially defined by only the most “sahih” (official) doctrines of islamic sharia jurisprudence. Read it and laugh.

    Or cry.

    The currently/still non-citizen Zunera Ishaq, is demanding (even before she’s been confirmed as a Canadian citizen, before earning any possible rights to demand anything of any one of us!) to wear her face-covering Niqab to her Citizenship ceremony.

    According to her liberal media sponsors in the Ottawa Citizen, on Saturday, February 10, 2015, P.# A10:

    In her affidavit filed with the court, Ishaq wrote that through research, she came to the conclusion that wearing a niqab was “mandatory to my faith” and “integral to the modesty that a muslim woman must show.” But only a small minority of muslim women wear niqabs in Canada.

    “I feel most at ease with myself and comfortable in my own skin when I am wearing my niqab,” she wrote. “In fact, there was one time when I had to call 911 due to the sudden birth of my second son at home. At the time when the emergency attendants came to my house I was not wearing my niqab, and my primary concern was covering my face before I could be seen. I did not leave the house until I was sure I be was covered.”

    OK, QUITE SIMPLY, SHE’S LYING – AND SO IS JUSTIN TRUDEAU, ON HER BEHALF.

    “Judge” Keith Boswell is supporting wannabe but currently non-Canadian-Citizen Zunera Ishaq’s false claims that she feels “that the governmental policy regarding veils at citizenship ceremonies is a personal attack on me, my identity as a Muslim woman and my religious beliefs,” and that said governmental regulations didn’t agree with other governmental regulations, which require citizenship judges to administer the oath with “dignity and solemnity, allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof.”

    The “judge” negligently errs in his total lack of assessment consideration of even the most basic, cursory glance into the official islamic source “reasons” – as given right in the Qur’an and sahih (official) hadiths – for a muslim women’s alleged requirement for covering up in public:

    The Hijab (or Niqab, as in this specific case) is not a religious duty or fashion trend, it’s only a prison uniform!

    It’s also a victim-blaming insult to both sexes; from Qur’an Sura 33:59, it is a slanderous statement that implies the muslim men (and all men, just like Muhammad himself allegedly was) are so at the mercy of their hormones, that they must molest and rape any and all women they can see; so it’s always the women’s own fault for not covering up.

    It also says the muslim men have a duty to molest and rape all the infidel women for not covering up!

    “O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. That will be better so that they will be known so as not to be molested. And Allâh is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’ân 33:59)

    So, exactly HOW will they “be known,” in the freedom sack?!

    Certainly not as in: “Oh, I know her! Hi, Mary!” – but “known” as muslimas – as members of the gang!

    And why is this important? “So as not to be molested!”

    Which again implies that muslims DID and always WILL “molest” (i.e: rape,) all the NON-muslim (“infidel”) women!

    That it’s the infidel women’s faults, because they don’t cover up, that the muslim men “must” molest (rape) them!

    And the Qur’an itself confirms their holy right and duty to rape infidel women.

    Muhammad also said women are created by allah as domesticated animals, created for men’s pleasure, and like fields to be tilled at will by men.

    So islam is also the “Religion of Rape!”

    ;-(

    Before Muhammad, covering up was optional; any fool could ignore it if they wanted to.

    The tafsir ahadith isnads (supplemental, explanatory material appending the Qur’an) explain that the Sura in question (33:59) arose because Moe’s wives were seen by moonlight as they went potty outside his tent one night.

    But, quite unlike any other self-respecting warlord, who would have had the peeping tom executed for spying on his wives, Moe agreed with the man and blamed his victims, (his own wives) perhaps because the peeper was a rich or influential member of an allied tribe.

    Bottom line: “Judge” Keith Boswell should be schooled that there is no inherent “dignity” whatsoever in catering to Zunera Ishaq’s imaginings, AND FEARS OF OTHER MUSLIMS, that she should be forced to hide in a sack, by sole dint of the fear of “inevitable” rape by men, as inflicted on her mental state by her own previous, habitually misogynistic, crime-culture background.

    FINALLY, AS FOR HER CLAIMS THAT MUSLIMAS MUST COVER UP IN FRONT OF NON-BLOOD-RELATION DOCTORS AND PHYSICIANS, (including, of course, Canadian PARAMEDICS) SHE ALSO FAILED TO DO EVEN BASIC RESEARCH:

    The Hedaya, (as first translated into English in Bengal in 1791) is the primary Haneefite sharia law manual, and, as such, was used for centuries to administer law to all the muslims in the world, under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

    From The Hedaya, Volume 1, Book 6, Chapter 6, P.#290-291 (Divorce):

    “the carnal connexion, or other acts, as before stated, are peculiar to marriage, especially in the case of free women, since, with respect to them, they cannot be lawful but through marriage, – and, with respect to female slaves, they are sometimes lawful by right of marriage, and sometimes by right of possession: contrary to touching, or looking at the pudenda of a woman, without lust, because that is sometimes lawful without marriage, as in the case of a physician or midwife; and the sight of other parts than the pudenda sometimes happens to people who reside together; and as a wife resides with her husband during her Edit, if such an accident {291} were to imply Rijaat, he might then give her another divorce, to her injury, as it would protract her Edit.”

    …and:

    Volume 2, Book 7, Chapter 3, P.#51 (Punishments)

    EVIDENCE TO WHOREDOM IS VALID, ALTHOUGH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACT BE UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED.

    “If witnesses bear evidence of whoredom against a man, declaring that “they had come to the knowledge of it by wilfully looking into the person’s private apartment at the time of the fact,” yet such evidence is to be credited, nor is it to be rejected on account of the manner in which the knowledge of the witnesses was obtained, as their looking was allowable, in order that they might be enabled to bear evidence; they are therefore the same as physicians or midwives ”

    …and:

    Volume 3, Book 23, Chapter 2, P.# 35:

    “The defect may also be of such a nature as required the inspection of women or physicians: — but although the opinion of women or physicians be sufficient to prevent contention, yet it is not a sufficient ground for a decree of restitution: there is, therefore, a necessity for the proofs aforesaid; — unless, indeed, the Kazee himself witness the sale and perceive the defect, in which case there is no necessity whatever for those proofs.”

    AND, FINALLY AND DEFINITIVELY:

    From Volume 4, Book 44, P.# 97 & 98:

    Rules to be observed by a physician in prescribing for women.

    “A PHYSICIAN, in administering to a strange woman, is permitted to look at the part affected. It is, however, most adviseable that he instruct another woman how to apply the remedy, as the circumstance of an individual of one sex looking at another of the same is of less consequence. If he should not be able to procure a fit woman to instruct, it is in that case incumbent on him to cover all the members of the woman, leaving exposed only the particular part affected, when he may look towards it; refraining from it however as much as is possible, since any thing the sufferance of which is prompted by necessity, ought to be exercised with as much restriction as the circumstances of the case will admit. — In the same manner also, it is lawful for a man, in administering a glyster to a man, to look at the proper part.”

    THEM’S THE FACTS, JACK – WHO NEEDS OPINION POLLS WHEN YOU’VE GOT THE FACTS?!

    😉