She gave presentations from the rear of the classroom with her back to the class, which counted three men among 20 students. Hostility grew one day when she asked male students to move away from her. For one-on-one exercises, the woman would retreat to a corner with her female instructor, according to Paul-Émile Bourque, the head of the college in a Montreal immigrant neighbourhood.
But when a new segment of the class began in October, there was no guarantee the teacher would be a woman. The coincidental gender imbalance of the first segment would end just as the entire class was supposed to sit around a U-shaped table and converse. And teaching proper pronunciation is impossible when you can't see the student's mouth, Mr. Bourque said.
The school and Quebec's Immigration Ministry, which financed the class, decided the veil would no longer be tolerated. In a province where accommodating immigrants has become a toxic issue, Immigration Minister Yolande James approved the ultimatum.
“We tried certain arrangements, but the demands just became too great,” said Mr. Bourque, who has faced criticism for making any special arrangements for the woman.
Well, if it's ok to restrict the rights of Christians, then of course it's ok to restrict the rights of Muslims. If the state is willing to tell Christians they can't have their Bibles out, can't pray in public institutions, etc., then they'll be correct to reject such Islamization as that woman attempted to impose onto her country of choice.
We don't go to the Islamic nations and attempt to force them to accommodate our ways, so who the hell are Islamic literalists to insist that we change ours to suit their preferences? I mean, if we tried to tell them what they had to do in their own countries, how do you think they'd react? And do you think that that Islamic-fundamentalist woman would have a problem with them insisting that no accommodations be made for us lowly, inferior, contemptible Kufrs?
One has to draw the line between integration and submission to Islam.
All are welcome in our country, but don't dare presume to come to our country, decide you don't like it and don't like who and how we are and tell us how we must be and become to suit your special, personal preferences. If you don't like the way things are here, well, you have the option of reconsidering your relocation decision. Isn't choice wonderful? You can stay and fit in and be equal if you want. If you want everyone else, instead, to change to fit with you and satisfy your personal preferences, then forget about it. Doesn't work that way in the real world. The one or the few doesn't get to dictate to the many. This is why we have a constitution that sets out the rules for everyone to follow, equally.
Wonder what would have happened if there were any flamboyantly GLBT classmates there? Keep in mind that the woman is obviously cripplingly male-phobic, in line with literalist Islam, so one must wonder how she'd have behaved if the class turned to talking about GLBT stuff... And if you don't know what Islam says about GLBT stuff, then do your homework and open your eyes.
And those "progressives" who would say that the woman should've been "accommodated" exactly as she demanded, well, would these "progressives" also say that devout Christians must be accommodated exactly as they demand? Well, of course not, so think about that, if you're a "progressive", and examine your double standards, of which you might actually be unaware.
Besides, "progressives" talk about the mythical "separation of church and state". Well, how about "separation of mosque and state"? Hmm? Do "progressives" want to be so lazy minded as to simply be "politically correct" and call me a "hater" or something for simply being realistic and fair?