And now, a left wing so-called journalist from Canada’s National Post is condemning the few who did correctly identify her as a hijab-wearing Muslim and smearing them as “Islamophobes.”
National Post (by Ethan Cox) Last Thursday morning, a 48-year-old (Muslim) woman, Naima Rhertouity from Morocco, died tragically in Montreal, after the scarf (hijab) she was wearing became caught in the escalator at a downtown metro station.
Almost immediately, the Journal de Montréal printed the headline they would stand by: “Strangled by her hijab,” referring to a head covering worn by many Muslim women, which has become something of an obsession for proponents of the Parti Québécois government’s Charter of Values. By early afternoon the hijab story was gaining so much steam that the police felt the need to (dishonestly) deny it, with spokesperson Jean-Pierre Brabant leaving the following statement on their media line: “A lot of people are talking about a hijab. The information that I have is that it’s a scarf.” (Photo of the woman in hijab – Above Right)
By Thursday, the Quebecor media properties (of which the Journal is a part) were alone in reporting the fact that the woman was entangled by a hijab, with other media outlets reporting that it was a scarf. Rather than retract, the Journal doubled down, with later versions noting that the police were denying the woman’s hijab caught, but insisting that they had two sources confirming it was a hijab.
But did these two officers see a hijab? Or did they see a scarf and let their over-eager imaginations, primed by months of public debate over the proposed Charter of Values, see what they wanted to see?
The day after the accident, the victim was identified as Naima Rharouity, a mother of two who was taking French classes, despite having recently emigrated from French-speaking Morocco, to better integrate into Quebec society. As it happens she did wear a hijab; as it also happens, witnesses indicate it was her long scarf which became caught. But the real question is, why does it matter? (Because she had no intention of “integrating into Quebec society” if she was wearing a Muslim supremacist symbol – the hijab)
“It’s upsetting to me that there’s so much emphasis on the hijab and the fact that Rharouity was a Muslim,” a friend of the victim told the Montreal Gazette’s Christopher Curtis. “Her hijab would have been tucked neatly under her winter coat and a long scarf. I spoke to the person who was next to her when it happened and she says it was a scarf that got caught. I wear a hijab, too, and it just seems impossible that it could ever get caught in an escalator.” (Yet it did!)
In the case of such a human tragedy, should we not put aside the petty political point-scoring, and the scarcely-veiled racism (What ‘race’ is Islam?), for long enough to acknowledge that a woman died, a fact equally tragic no matter what religion she practiced? Ultimately, the responsibility was on the Journal’s editors to exercise restraint (So now, hiding the truth is considered ‘restraint?’), rather than reach for the most inflammatory headline available to them. (Only inflammatory because it’s demonstrates the need for the Charter of Values which muslims and leftists don’t like) Instead, they emptied a jerry-can of gasoline all over the tinderbox that is Quebec today, and lit a match. (Ewwww, telling the truth is now a firestorm)
Comments on social media, such as one which celebrated the death and expressed hope it would lead Muslims to learn their lesson about not wearing the hijab in Quebec, are indicative of the prejudice stirred up by this case. Another said simply enough “one less terrorist in Quebec.” (Or one less breeder of one)
It’s time to take a stand against the creeping scourge of Islamophobia, which is a problem not only in Quebec, where the odious tone of the debate regarding the so-called Charter of Values has put it under a spotlight, but across the country. Because at the end of the day, a scarf is just a scarf, and how it was worn should matter as little as its colour in responding to a tragic accident. (And you, Ethan, are an idiot dhimmi)