Vincent J. Curtis
17 Nov 2017
RE: Veil Law Must Be Changed
Beginning with his statement that “It is the duty of the
Canadian Prime Minister to defend the rights of every Canadian.” it is clear
that the editor slept through the classes in logic and civics, if any, that
were taught in J-school. Put bluntly: no, it isn’t; and belief in such
still aren’t grounds for special pleading on behalf of immigrants.
The editorial amounts to special pleading on behalf of
Muslims that would be no different from any made by the Muslim
Brotherhood. Muslims are special, and therefore should be exempt from the
requirements of Western law, goes the refrain. The editorial amounts
special pleading for Muslims in the face of another case of special pleading,
that of Quebec’s distinct society - on account of the predominant French
culture in La Belle Province.
The editor must have been in diapers when the Parti
Quebecois government of Quebec passed Bill 101, the Charter of the French
Language. That legislation was seen as an act of oppression against the
English speaking minority in Quebec, but nevertheless English Canada (as it was
then known) swallowed the Bill in the interests of national unity.
Bill 62 is a logical continuation of Bill 101, an act
asserting that French culture must predominate in Quebec. France has an
anti-burka law, and so Quebec can have one. What the editorial fails to
explain is why Muslim specialness ranks higher than the specialness of Quebec,
given that we have already accepted the specialness of our Quebec fellow
countrymen while niqab wearing Muslims are generally immigrants. (Western
converts have no excuse.)
It is not the business of English Canada to intervene in
Quebec’s cultural matters, but his belief in the specialness of Muslims leads
the editor to argue that we undermine settled matters in the realm of national
unity.
What is the next cultural Islamic matter the editor will
defend, FGM?
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment