Daniel Patrick Moynihan - "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."
You may have seen them, ever since the controversial Charter of Quebec Values surfaced I’ve been seeing them more often. People are sharing links to venom spewing websites via social media such as Facebook.
I saw one such post today, and a couple of people who I really know, as opposed to “Facebook Friends” commented on the link. These are normal people who most of us would have no problem sitting down to coffee with, and yet they are totally against these Muslim women who are not being forced to remove their veils before getting on a plane.
The story revolves around a video shot at Montreal’s Pierre Elliot Trudeau airport where two women were apparently allowed to board a flight without showing their faces.
The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-3frv4tnx8
In the video we see a man interact with the representative at the counter, and then we see three apparently Muslim women passing by the same representative without a glance. Did I mention the obvious edit? We don’t get to see the women interact with the representative at all.
According to Salon.com these women would have already undergone several security checks before getting to this area in the airport. The article also says that Air Canada, the airline this women were travelling on has a policy of having women who wear religious garments that cover their face brought to a private screening area to allow them to remove their facial covering for Photo ID comparison.
Was this done before this point? Was it done after they entered the Gate? We don’t know, the video doesn’t show that.
Now the website makes it sound like these women weren’t screened at all, that they were permitted to just walk through the airport from the front door to the airplane without ever being screened. Does that sound reasonable to you?
The article also has a few other still pictures of veiled Muslim women showing their ID, supposedly Passports. I’ll share them with you.
Look carefully at the Passport. Her face is uncovered, her hair is uncovered… what does this suggest to you? Could it be that she has no issue with having a bare faced picture taken for her Passport but won’t appear in public without a veil? Do you think she would have an issue with being taken aside to a private area to have an airline representative ensure that she is the same person that appears in her Passport?
Or maybe this is just a put up job to inflame emotions.
The photo is named “pakistan-vi” from the website I took it from. If you look carefully, you will see their faces are uncovered on their ID cards. Now I was unable to find anything in particular on this photo, other than a portion of it (the two ladies on the right) was used in a news story from Saudi Arabia telling how women there would be allowed to vote and that they would be able to obtain ID cards such as these so the a female election official can verify their identity.
Yet another photo.
This one was helpfully named “afghan_election_gi_gal-vi”. The website infers that these women are holding Passports as well.
The same photo is found at an Australian news program called PM . It is captioned “Afghan women show cards at polling centre in 2011”.
OK it’s two pictures. The one on the left is from that same website, the one on the right, I pinched from a news story on the net. I blanked out the information on Stuart’s licence, but I left enough to show the left picture has obviously been altered, they even went so far as to obscure the state it was from. The burqa clad woman on the left, her image is crooked on the licence, Stuart’s is nice and straight. Stuart’s signature looks like a scanned image that is printed onto the card, Fatima’s looks like it was hand written on the signature tape that used to be used years ago.
Finally look at the date of issue. Although Stuart’s card is older, it looks far more up to date than Fatima’s. And Fatima’s card? It appears to have been lifted from YATAHONGA.com, a French humour site. I looked, it’s not there anymore… must not have been that funny I guess.
I almost forgot, New Jersey does not allow face covering to be worn for your driver’s licence.
Look, the guy who has the site where I picked these images from is allowed to have an opinion. You might agree with him, I do not.
BUT, he should not be allowed to use false images and misrepresentations to support his flimsy argument based on a chopped up video.
You are not entitled to your own facts.
In reality, I’m no fan of the burqa, but if a woman wants to belong to a religion that requires that she wear one, it is not my issue. The flip side to that is that if a government mandates that women must wear items like this, I do have an issue with that.
I believe in the separation of Church and State. I don’t want someone’s religion, anyone’s religion telling me how to live. But the separation of Church and State cuts both ways and I do not want the government to tell me what religions I am allowed to follow nor do I want them telling religions how to run their belief.
By the way, the woman with the Passport, it was a set up job in 2007 by the Sun Newspaper in the UK.
And the video is from 2010, when it was brought to John Baird’s attention he had an investigation started into what actually happened. Since we never heard about it, we can only suppose that:
a) There was nothing to the story and so the press let it slide or
b) The Harper Party is in bed with Muslim Extremists.
I'd be remiss if I didn't thank a Facebook Friend who pointed out that one of the pictures that this website also used was of Muslim women in line to vote. Thank you very much P.
PS: I intentionally did not include a link to the “venom spewing site”. I’m not going to drive any business their way. If you really want it, let me know and I’ll send it to you. BC