Even though Ed. made it clear [he thought! Ed.] that the assumption that the "headscarf" was a hijab had been made by the sub-editor at the QMI agency, who called it that in the headline in the Sun newspapers, we were greeted this morning by a comment calling Walt a "racist" for Walt's (presumed) support of the Charter of Québec values.
"Racist" is what liberals and PC thinkers call anyone who disagrees with their views on the beneficence of immigration, secularism, abortion, homosexuality etc etc ad nauseam. There was no evidence, the commenter said, to suggest that the deceased was a Muslim, yet (he or she said) that was what Walt implied by suggesting that the accident could be linked to headgear worn by Muslim women.
OK then. Here's a Facebook photo of the deceased. She is...or was...Naima Rharouity, age 47, from the district of Villeray, in Montréal's east end. She immigrated to Canada with her husband and children a little less than two years ago.
We don't know if this covering worn by Mme Rharouity is the same one she was wearing when she met her fate, but I think it's safe to assume that if not, it would have been something similar. And what should we call it? Please refer to "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?" It's not a burqa. It's not a niqab, which veils the face except for the eyes.
You might call it a "headscarf", since it's not cut square at the bottom as a hijab usually is, but it's being worn in the same manner (and for the same religious reason) as a hijab. Hands up, all who made the same assumption as the sub-editor at QMI...and Walt. Thank you.
Ethan Cox, writing in today's National Pest, says the deceased was wearing a traditional square-cut hijab AND a longer headscarf. It was the scarf that got caught in the elevator. Predictably, Cox accuses Quebecor of "Islamophobia".
ReplyDelete