Tagged: niqab Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • ross1948 10:23 on October 14, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: bag-head crime, , , , , , niqab, ,   

    C’mon, You Dirty Canadian Dogs! BITE The B——ds! 

    After the Filthy French Solidarite Avec Les Filthy French and the Selfish Danes Evil Racist Danes Exposed! ‘“They’re Thinking More About Protecting Their Own!” and (worst of all, surely!) the Christian Cypriots Greek Cyprus ‘prefers’ max 300 Orthodox Christian migrants …

    • Shamelesstory_2011_Intertitle


    …now civilised Western people resistant to Islamist arrogance have been re-defined as dogs, CANINE Canadians, to be explicit.


    • Rabid-Dog-for-OS ”In all our pups command…?”
    • =======================
    • The slur comes from a Montreal journo, James Mennie, who also dislikes the democratic principle that politicians should represent, not dictate to, the people.

    If voters, for example, fear for their jobs, responsible pols respond with policies on employment. If people are alarmed about an ebola epidemic, parliament will debate medical resources.

    But if Canadians think that ghastly backward bint’s refusal to remove her head-shroud is an affront to Canada? Hell, their government should scold them for being ‘prejudiced.’




    there have been criticisms that the Conservatives are engaging in “dog whistle politics” ostensibly citing conviction and principle for their stand while appealing to the fears and prejudices of the electorate.

    In what possible way can the Canadian electorate’s disgust at the woman (whose bag-head haute couture is a personal whim, unsupported by respectable ( and even some rather extreme!) Muslims…

    ‘An Archaic Tribal Rag’ – Wise UK Muslim Imam Says ‘Ban the Burqa!’ 

    It’s on the BBC! Bag-Head Bans Do Not Infringe Religious Liberty! 

    Fiery Islamists – ‘Head-Scarves NOT a Big Issue!’ 

    …be stigmatised as a ‘prejudice?

    Forgive me if I say he needs a dictionary – prejudice means ‘pre-judging,’ deciding something without knowing the facts. The facts in this case are that burkas are a sexist, discriminatory challenge to anyone’s ‘norm’ of women’s rights – so why should normal Canadians not ‘fear’ their imposition on a modern society?

    Are we to conclude Mr. Mennie regards hostility to FGM and polygamy as a ‘prejudice’ too? 




    Not to mention that such primeval head-gear facilitates evil, crimes both electoral “Very Tall Figure – Full Islamic Burka – Voted 3 Times!”   and monstrous   (crimes that can be committed  by non-Muslims too, please note!)

    PC Burka-Grovel Condemned a Girl to Rape Nightmare! 


    Yet these factors do not seem to weigh heavily on Mr. Mennie’s consciousness – perhaps because he’s susceptible to ‘fears and prejudices’ about Stephen Harper?!?

    Or to his ‘fears and prejudices‘ about the great majority of his fellow-Canadians, the canines, whom he presumably regards as less ‘tolerant’ than the media elite of which he forms part?   

    But if that’s the case, the electorate has apparently responded with canine predictability. Mulcair’s unwavering opposition to the face covering ban has cost him and the NDP dearly in the polls, turning their campaign from a chance at government into a political salvage operation.

    I’m no huge fan of Harper, largely because he seems to have jettisoned a lot of his ‘conviction and principle’ to get the biased media off his back (NB – it hasn’t worked, Stephen!)




    But I can see no evidence at all that he doesn’t believe what he says about the revolting niqab/burka/head-shroud, whatever you want to call it. When he spoke of his abhorrence of the idea of his own daughter consigned to bag-head status, he sounded utterly sincere.

    As would any decent father, surely?  And mother.

    Young and old, parent or child, Canadians should delight in the fact that this has become a big issue in next week’d election.

    • Arnold 19:25 on October 14, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      You are too nice about this baghead. She joined the facebook group of Jamaat-e-Islami, the terrorist organization that was being funded by ISNA Canada.
      ISNA had it’s charitable status revoked by the CRA for funding the group. Jamaat-e-Islami is recognized as an officially designated terrorist entity by our government.


  • ross1948 09:18 on October 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Elizabeth SMART, , niqab, , , Utah law HB101,   

    PC Burka-Grovel Condemned a Girl to Rape Nightmare! 

    Hard to credit that any law-enforcement officer in any civilised country would behave in such a supine manner.

    This story, about Elizabeth Smart, the young girl beaten and raped for months by a psycho in the USA, comes from Taki’s Magazine.


    • Silhouette weeping
    • =======================
    • I reprint some of it, because with Canada due to vote next week, it is most timely to remind everyone there that the burka/niqab/vile veil, call it what you will, is intolerable.

    Not just because those women who skulk behind it are either engaging in deliberate self-abasement or coerced thereto, tainting that fundamental acceptance of women as full citizens which should be part of Canada…


    • burka family
    • ============

    A Detective Richey was suspicious when he saw a bearded man with a face-shrouded female in a public place. But when he wanted to check it out, the man refused to let him.

    Instead of doing his duty, the cop backed off, because he was concerned about violating Mitchell’s “civil rights” and offending his “religious beliefs…”

    He retreated from the library, giving in to Mitchell’s claim that the niqab was sacred and that lifting it would be a gross civil rights violation… Smart testified that as Detective Richey abandoned her, “I felt like hope was walking out the door…. I felt terrible that the detective could just walk away.”


    • devil destroyed
    • ===============
    • She had to endure seven more months of bestial abuse because of Richey’s spineless conduct, yet at the trial, Richey had the nerve to say  “There’s nothing I would have done differently.” 

    Taki’s article explains why Richey may have felt he had to put Burka-Grovel before responsibility.

    • political-correctness_submission
    • A ridiculous PC state law had somehow got through Utah’s legislature just a month before the encounter occurred. Under HB 101 officers would risk disciplinary action if their discretionary stops demonstrated “bias” or “racial profiling.”

    Knowing that any complaint against him would be put into the HB 101 database, Detective Richey chose to walk away. (side note: Utah Republicans made sure HB 101 was not renewed when it expired in 2007)

    It turns out the media suppressed this part of the scandal, with one exception, The Salt Lake Tribune

    In her closing argument to the jury, Assistant U.S. Attorney Diana Hagen blasted Mitchell: “In the Salt Lake City Library, he played the Muslim card for all that it was worth.”  Niqab Nightmare – Taki’s Magazine

    The monster was not Muslim, BTW, and decent Muslims will no doubt be as appalled as I am by the sordid sell-out story, but as Taki says,

    It’s a damning quote, and the media ignored it completely.

    This head-shroud should be outlawed everywhere. In my home city, Jakarta, 90% Muslim, almost nobody wears it. 

    I read somewhere that even Chad, in the Sahara Desert, has done so. 

    Why not Canada?

    • Juwita 11:54 on October 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      It is so like you say, no Indonesian woman will wear that thing like mask, we are proud of our hair and face and smiling.
      Only Arab expat likes to have his woman wear it, and some crazy kampung men who think like Arab.
      Who knows what his woman thinks, she is like dog trail after him.
      I pity the woman like that.


  • ross1948 12:01 on February 18, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, niqab, , , ,   

    Turdophobia Alert – Opposes Appeal, Lacks Appeal! 

    Hard to believe one could detest The Turdeau Kid as much as one loathed his sire…





    ..but… Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is taking issue with Stephen Harper’s rationale for the decision to defend a federal ban on the wearing of face coverings at citizenship ceremonies.

    “The reason the prime minister gave last week for appealing the court’s decision around the niqab was, to my mind, not at all justifying the prime minister’s decision.”


    • burka  ‘Our home and native land..’ and where might that be?
    • ===============================================
    • But do our many Canadian readers disagree with Harper’s policy, which I quote –

    At the very moment newcomers are joining the Canadian family, we believe new citizens should recite the oath proudly, loudly and for everyone to see and hear.”





    “Canadian citizenship confers both rights and responsibilities. The rules for obtaining it should apply equally to all.”


    We know that the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, located in Alberta, which used to be a nice place, shares Turdo’s tastes for accommodating backward sectarians.

    They have called on the prime minister to reverse his plans to appeal. The group says the Federal Court’s decision to allow face coverings during citizenship ceremonies is “not an important issue,” but that Harper is making it one unnecessarily.

    It IS important. It says something about what Canada is, or should be. 

    The better question to raise is why such primitives – not the women but the men – are allowed to obtain citizenship in a civilised country.

    The bints’ owners (and ‘owners’ is a more apt word than husbands or fathers, when the relationship is so lop-sided that the wretched bints are forced to hide their faces when even their ugliest men-folk aren’t) should be sent home, with the bints, and told to study what women’s rights in the 21st century are all about.


    Harper’s Government has already passed legislation against importing ‘barbaric practices’ –

    ‘The Zero-Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act’ – Canada Tells It Like it Is! 

     – wording which The Turd  didn’t like because he doesn’t appreciate diversity being dissed – so all it should take is a brief amendment to add wearing the scarves of subjugation to the list of offensive customs.

    As for the damn courts, it’s time they were slapped down. Harper should, if need be, invoke the ‘notwithstanding’ clause – this is just the sort of situation it was meant for, when Turdeau Senior’s blasted Charter was enacted. 


Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
%d bloggers like this: