My Name is Not Colonel Williams

Calgary elects Canada’s first Muslim mayor – This is not an April Fool's joke. This is reality in a country that is far more tolerant, far more decent, far more grounded in common sense than some at CBC head office would have you think…Far more tolerant than the Ontario Appeals Court would have you think. The appeals court that feels they need to teach Canadians tolerance by jamming Shariah Law down our throats. And in case you think I am just barking at the Crescent Moon, I am not.

Shariah law, the kind practiced in Iran received more than just lip service in a Canadian courtroom in recent days. It got room service from a unanimous decision by the Ontario Appeals Court that said a Muslim woman in the witness box has a right to wear a veil over her head. They – in a unanimous decision – overruled a lower court judge to insist that she abide by Canadian custom and remove her veil so that she could look the accused sexual abusers in the eye and look Canadian justice in the eye. The Ontario Appeals Court and that's sky high up in the Canadian Judicial food chain – these are the men and women who get a serious shot at Supreme Court Status – the Appeals Bench was unanimous in giving the lower court judge the back of the hand for making a Canadian decision, one that wasn't driven by the diversity agenda, the tolerance agenda, the agenda that says every tradition in the world is more worthy of more respect than our own tradition. The appeals court told the judge that not enough sensitivity was being shown to the woman's religious belief and that a compromise should have been sought, a compromise like perhaps agreeing if she takes her veil off to clear the courtroom of all men even if the judge is a man? Even if the prosecutor is a man?

I am a man. I am not a blind dog in a butcher shop sniffing for and pounding on anything that smells like meat. My name is Not Colonel Williams. I am not prepared to accept the idea of a Canadian court telling me that anybody for some called religious reasons has the right to boot me from a court because as a male I am a threat to her because as a male I have such little control over my impulses that I am a threat to her. This is bogus. From my own perspective as a free man this is a perversion of truth and to pay fealty to it, to honour it in any way, in our own country, in Canada, is an assault on Canada.

12 thoughts on “My Name is Not Colonel Williams

    • +1
    • Vote -1
    • Vote +1
    Raffaela Pingitore on

    Dear Mr. Adler, can we now agree that sometimes, (Too often in Canada)
    TOLERANCE = stupidity and irresponsibility?
    Our ancestors and many immigrants fled their lands for a BETTER life, not to bring their intolerance, ignorance and laws here. Too bad no one in Canada seems to have the guts and internal fortitude that Sarkozy has in France and banned the darned veil totally. Where are our role models? our heros? Who will stand up for what it means to be CANADIAN???????????
    Canada has been a great country to live in, many of us recognize this and are grateful to be here. BUT, what kind of country are we going to leave to our children and grandchildren?

    • Vote -1
    • Vote +1
    Rick Austin CD RCN (retd) on

    If anything screams louder for judicial reform in this country,I’d be hard pressed to find an example.When I was in the Persian Gulf in 1991 helping to liberate Kuwait,we were issued strict orders on how to dress when we went ashore,so as to not offend the local muslim populace.No shorts or shirts that revealed too much of our flesh ,and also strictly forbidden to gaze upon the women there.Being Canadians and respectful of their traditions, we complied as we did in other cultures while ashore, subscribing to the old maxim of, “when in as the Romans do”.Common sense and civility prevailed.The judges in this case obviously lack the two latter qualities.If we as Canadians do not put a stop to this madness as so eloquently reaffirmed by Barbara Kay’s and Ezra Levant’s recent articles;we are going to have a country that is no longer recognizable,nor fair or just.It is also far past the time for people who come to this country to respect our history and honourable traditions and stop trying to masquerade political statements in wearing the niqab and burkha as religious freedoms.Sharia law and its subjugation of women has no place in Canada.Period.

  1. Dear Mr Adler,
    as a Muslim woman I will agree with you on this, these women wearing the burka are not following some injunction from god they are following a cultural tradition there is no place in the Koran does it say cover up so you cant be seen these people need to learn their faith and understand the difference between scripture and culture in addition to that there are grounds in the Koran that state you must follow the law of the land ( as long as it does not go against koranic law) that you are living in not, bend the law to your whims, these judges need to understand the law before pandering to the needs of someone who clearly does understand tenants of there faith.

  2. Judges are using tolerance and diversity to advance Sharia Law at the expense of the Megna Carta, progressive judges have far to much power and they need to be reminded that Camada was founded on Rule of Law not accomadating medieval cultural practices tarted up as religious tenents.
    Our courts are suppose to be governed by “Rule of Law” not religious tolerance and diversity. Ontario Judges seems to be at the fore front in twinning Sharia Law with out criminal laws and I’m appalled at the burka decision. I fear for my country, but I’m frozen in fear at the damage liberal/progressive judges are doing to the fabric of Canadian society.
    That ruling is abomination, it allows men to be removed from our court rooms because Islamic Supremacists’ doctorine edicts it, I’m sorry but that’s discrimination based on gender and I’m fed up with legalized state sponsored anti-male discrimination.

    • Vote -1
    • Vote +1
    Ronald Reagan on

    Ah, Charles, how shall ye err? Let me count the ways:
    1) The decision did not create the “right” to wear a veil in court;
    2) The superior court judge to which N.S. applied for certiorari also quashed the decision of the preliminary inquiry judge ordering her to remove the veil;
    3) The decision has been remitted to the preliminary inquiry judge, who will balance the Charter-protected right to full answer and defence with the Charter-protected right to freedom of religion and determine if, in the circumstances, she should be permitted to testify while wearing a veil;
    4) Sections 486, 486.1, 486.2 and the common law power of judges to control the process in their own courtrooms already permit the barring of the public, testifying behind screens, testifying by way of CCTV, etc.
    Try reading the decision before flying off the handle; it’s reasonable.

  3. This matter should be questioned again and be brought back before the courts. The veil has no place in our courtrooms or in public places. Who knows what or whom is under those face coverings? Just for our safety alone they should be banned. First time I agree with Quebec and Good for France! Veils are not a religious article. They are by choice and backward cultures!

    • +1
    • Vote -1
    • Vote +1
    Paul Reid on

    I am absolutely fed up with muslims in our country – and coming to our country – demanding we bow down to their islamic demands – look at what is happening in Britian and Denmark – islam = evil…plain and simple – do we want the same thing here? – NO NO NO NO…to islam.

    • Vote -1
    • Vote +1
    david henman on

    …given the preponderance of right wing hate in this country, as evidenced 24-7 on right wing talk radio and the gruff-voiced conservative constantly whining “if THESE people think they can come to MY country…”, i’m inclined to think you’re dead wrong, mr adler. our fear and resentment of immigrants, foreign visitors and non-whites appears to be thriving quite well.
    certainly, no one would argue that everyone needs to obey our laws, including our own citizens.
    but our xenophobia extends well beyond that to an unhealthy intolerance of the way people dress, the languages they speak, the religions they practice etc.

    • +1
    • Vote -1
    • Vote +1
    Neil Steffler on

    Charles My great great Grandfather came to this country from Germany, he always told his family that we are in Canada now, we came here for a better life and not to force our costumes, traditions, or religion on the people of his new chosen country, He went to local church in the community, not a church of his faith, he said it did not matter cause he was there to pray not to change the local people belief, he always said we must respect the people whom had come before him adapt to there ways , he said if I wanted my life to be unchanged I would of stayed in germany, he homesteaded in a area now called ontario, it was not named at the time, he broke the land raised crops,raised animals had children and died believing he had done the right thing for his family, o Ya he also fought for us all so we would have a better life , he did not cave in to other people taking control of our great Country or changing what Canada was to become I am thinking that the laws making this a country for every one wanting it to be a country that they just come from would greatly make him and many others feel that they worked, fought,and died for nothing. Charles I love Canada I have worked hard for 36 years raised my family of 13 telling them that this is the best country in the world , they don’t vote and laugh at me when I tell them they should vote, they say dad a new immigrant has more rights, gets more help,and has more say then they do, i argue with them telling them they are wrong, all the time knowing they are right, I wish all people would come here work hard enjoy life be a part of a great country, help us prosper instead of being a expence to the country trying to make it to be the country they just come from.

  4. I do disagree with the Ontario Appeals Court, for a few reasons. If I were on a jury, I would want to see the face of the victim, or witness, or accused. Rightly or wrongly, most people make personal judgements based not only on what people say, but also on their facial expressions are and their demeanor. If an accused is smirking or showing no emotion I want to see that. If a witness is lying that we might see that in their face. If a victim is expressing pain, crying, angry, or suprised at a towards the accused I want to see that in their face. Are we going to have courts with a female judge a female prosecutor and a fully female jury. Conversly are if we have a muslim man in court, are we going to have a court with a male judge, a male prosecutor and a full male jury so a man will not be “inflamed” by seeing a women not wearing a burka. The whole thing is ridiculous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Disclaimer: The editor(s) reserve the right to edit any comments that are found to be abusive, offensive, or contain profanity.