Canada: Welfare Queen Wouldn’t Remove Hijab in Court – IOTW Report

Canada: Welfare Queen Wouldn’t Remove Hijab in Court

Clash Daily:

This Canadian judge wasn’t budging with this woman who came into the courtroom wearing a hijab.

A Quebec judge told a woman appearing in her Montreal courtroom she would not hear her case until she removed her hijab.

In an audio recording of the proceedings obtained by CBC News, Judge Eliana Marengo is heard telling Rania El-Alloul on Tuesday that the courtroom is a secular place and that she is not suitably dressed.

“Hats and sunglasses for example, are not allowed.  And I don’t see why scarves on the head would be either,” Marengo says in the recording.  more

15 Comments on Canada: Welfare Queen Wouldn’t Remove Hijab in Court

  1. Hmm, an immigrant freeloader, a muslim no less who is unmarried with three kids one of whom is responsible for her being in court. Our immigration laws suck. How did she get into the country in the first place? When she refused a second time and whined about being on welfare and not being able to afford one the judge ought to have slapped her with a contempt. She can afford one now, two assholes in Vancouver started a gofundme or some such thing that has already raised $23,000 for this woman. God we Canadians are such marks.

  2. Secularism versus islam…..different sides of the same coin. Both are totalitarian in nature, both are oppressive, both are virulently anti-God and both seek absolute control of your life. Secularism is the faith of communists and socialists. quebec is also, by far the most racist province in Canada, but not because it does not promote multiculturalism, it does in fact, as a matter of formal policy, but rather because of language and their idea of ‘la laine pur’ (pure wool) French culture.

    Make no mistake about it; quebec is one footstep way from full blown communism.

    The judge is not refusing to hear the case because of islam, but because the hijab represents a religion, something that all communists hate. She is not being noble at all.

    She is nothing more than a dictator (secularism) using her advantageous position (judge) to trump another dictator (islam).

    She would do the same to a Jew or Christian.

    She is no friend of the people.

  3. Update on mu comment:
    Please note that another story has her separated from her husband, (presumably another muslim, I wonder what the Koran says about parental obligations?) not a single mother and the reason she was in court was because either her son or her was caught driving with a suspended license. The usual suspects are now getting involved but boy I’d still like to hear her whole story.

  4. @Goldenfoxx,

    So you would prefer to live under socialism/communism? You would desire a socialist/communist sitting on the supreme court bench?

    If that’s the case, allow obama to complete his fundamental change of America unhindered.

    I live under that s**t right now and I can tell you, it is no picnic.

  5. These ‘judges’ are the same judges that investigate my wife and I for homeschooling our children, as they consider it a form of child abuse and it is before the supreme court at this moment to be outlawed in quebec. these are the ‘judges’ that can come and take your house right from under you for ANY reason they see fit, these are the same ‘judges’ that refuse to implement or obey the law that Harper passed scrapping the long gun registry, these ‘judges’ are the same that operate in cuba, NoKo, China and in every other socialist /communist countries.

    As I said, they are no friend of the people…

  6. Canada is set up like England.

    Masters and Slaves.

    Or Aristocrats and Peasants, if those euphemisms bring comfort.

    THIS is the fundamental change Obola is inflicting on America:
    Obola is enslaving HIS SOVEREIGN!

    The enormity of this is breathtaking.
    That we allow it is shameful.

    (not to be confused with ‘enormous’)

  7. @Jack Daniels: “Hats and sunglasses for example, are not allowed. And I don’t see why scarves on the head would be either,” Marengo says in the recording.

    No Jack, I’d rather live by the laws set down by the court. The judge said: “that the courtroom is a secular place and that she is not suitably dressed.”

    What’s good for one is good for all. Remove the scarf and be a part of the court system that has rules for everyone to follow, even if we don’t like the rules.

  8. Sorry Goldenfoxx, I know what you are trying to get at, but you miss my point, and I don’t imagine that you live here, so you cannot imagine what it is like. Her words are not merely formal rhetoric, rather they are meant to establish a fundamental truth about the province, not merely in the court room….and that is, quebec as a whole is a secular…ergo a socialist province.

    Communist Cuba, Venezuela, China and a host of other countries that adopt this secular philosophy in the courts apply these beliefs within their laws…..y’know the one that you would rather follow because if it is good for one, it is good for all.

    Tyranny is built on rules we don’t like…..I am not talking about jaywalking fines or such trivial rules, I am talking about rules the suppress your freedom…..y’know the freedoms that you are losing by the day due to rules set down by obama and his judges…..

  9. @Jack Daniels: I live in the US which is hardly any different than Canada. At least we still can own and bear arms. We’ve got sucky laws here too – like the ban on plastic bags. I even believe there are laws in some cities here where you can’t wear your pants down around your ass. I’m well aware of our freedoms that we are losing day-by-day. Even the heard scarf is a sucky rule. I suppose if the woman doesn’t want to remove it, then she isn’t going to get her car back. Yeah, play by the rules, be nice and you get free stuff. It’s all ass backwards.

Comments are closed.