Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Good Riddance | Main | Crazy for quotas »

Monday, October 22, 2007

The veil and the school bus crash

The driver of the Calgary school bus that crashed and killed a kid was wearing some sort of veil. I don't know if it was a Muslim hijab, an Eastern European baboushka, or just a hoodie. I don't know because not a single one of the news reporters on the scene bothered to ask.

To me, it's obvious why: because the subject matter clearly touches on the debate about "reasonable accommodation" and how far we're willing to let Muslim culture trump Canadian culture, when the two clash. I submit to you that they clash when it comes to wearing something that blocks a school bus driver's peripheral vision. I would say the same thing about any other religious appurtenance that interfered with driving.

Here's my Sun column on the subject.

I've had a few responses so far, split between those who are appalled that I would even ask such questions, and those who are appalled that the rest of the media hasn't asked them.

It seems obvious to me that unimpaired vision is a "bona fide occupation requirement" -- legal jargon for an important job criterion that trumps political correctness. It's the same reason we "discriminate" against blind people by not letting them drive, either.

For those who say we should eliminate clear vision as a criterion for school bus driving, and allow hijabs, I'd ask:

1. Are there any limits at all? Such as the full niqab -- the one-woman-prison, often with the mesh in front of the eyes? and

2. Do you mind if we try out such one-way multicultural experiments on your kids, and no-one else's?

Posted by Ezra Levant on October 22, 2007 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54efc5bea8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The veil and the school bus crash:

Comments

Ezra ~

Do you really expect the enemedia to report honestly?

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 1:11:44 PM


Ezra, to answer your questions raised in the article ("Why did no one ..."):

Because most of our media are committed to that terrible mental disorder, political correctness, that's why. Heaven forbid that a fatal bus crash, which killed one child, should be traced back to a Muslim bus driver who had her view impaired by a veil.

http://www.wernerpatels.com/canuck_columnist/2007/10/bus-drivers-vie.html

Posted by: Werner Patels (THE SPADE) | 2007-10-22 1:46:28 PM


Load O' Crapola. Right here:

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/10/ezra-levant-shrieks-muslim-muslim.html#links

I've linked to a youtube video in which the bus-driver appears. 1) Doesn't look like a hijab (examples via link) and 2) it ain't blocking her vision. This is nothing more than Ezra waxing racist for the Bubbas.

Posted by: bigcitylib | 2007-10-22 2:21:36 PM


As I wrote on my blog, BigCityLib is suffering from that mental disorder, political correctness.

Posted by: Werner Patels (THE SPADE) | 2007-10-22 2:39:39 PM


1) Doesn't look like a hijab (examples via link) and 2) it ain't blocking her vision.

It does look like a hijab, and there is no way for certain, looking at the video, that you could conclude her vision was or wasn't blocked. Levant rushes to convict, you rush to exonerate. Let the police do their job.

Posted by: lotus 25 | 2007-10-22 2:41:50 PM


Hijab doesn't have a kot under the chin.

Posted by: bigcitylib | 2007-10-22 2:44:46 PM


It does look like a hijab and it is blocking side vision from the angle of the camera. Your diagrams posted are ideal - not always what happens in practice. All Ezra was pointing out the obvious that the MSM somehow never bother to follow up on something obvious - when a bus crashes in an accident that seems strange (sideswiping a parked truck) you need to look at the driver - period. And NONE of the media did.

Posted by: MJM | 2007-10-22 2:45:15 PM


A "knot", that is.

Posted by: bigcitylib | 2007-10-22 2:45:24 PM


The link to the cbc broadcast at big city lib shows the woman very clearly,much better than any of the other Calgary newscasts on this. The woman is not only wearing a viel but a scarf also. If you stop the video at about 49 seconds left it is apparent that her peripheral vision is greatly blocked akin to someone suffering from glaucoma. I get migraines that obscure my peripheral vision and when I feel them coming on,I do not drive. I certainly would not drive a busload of kids around.I wonder if the parents will sue and if they do ,will it be buried like this story?

Posted by: wallyj | 2007-10-22 2:47:13 PM


Hijab doesn't have a kot under the chin.

True. I don't know any that have a kot, though I've seen some that have a knot.

Posted by: lotus 25 | 2007-10-22 2:50:28 PM


Another thing that bothers me about bigcitylib's post. He/she is so quick to smear Ezra for "waxing racist for the bubbas". How rude and hypoctitical. He/she automatically shows intolerance for facts when these facts do not fit his percieved notion of the melting pot society.But,I do find a little humour in the fact that his link provides the best evidence of her vision being blocked.Liberalism is not only a mental disorder,it is also a vision problem,in more ways than one.

Posted by: wallyj | 2007-10-22 3:04:51 PM


I invite everyone to look at the evidence. It does not look like a hijab and it does not look like her vision is impaired. To get a similar effect, try throwing on a hooded sweatshirt. So maybe the "reporters" Ezra chastised thought of the question, but dismissed it as irrelevant after two seconds of thinking about it.

And of course its race baiting: Ezra is arguing that this accident is the fault of muslims even if this woman isn't a muslim, even if no muslims were involved.

Posted by: bigcitylib | 2007-10-22 3:11:07 PM


wallyj - If you stop the video at about 49 seconds left it is apparent that her peripheral vision is greatly blocked akin to someone suffering from glaucoma.

If you were traveling at 70KPh and hit a stationary gravel truck nearly head on, would you expect that maybe, just maybe your headwear might move a wee bit? Wearing some styles of sunglasses can reduce peripheral vision and I haven't seen a call to ban them while driving. Let the police do their investigation.

Posted by: lotus 25 | 2007-10-22 3:13:10 PM


Like André-Philippe Gagnon said while immitating Jacques Demers who talks about accomodations...

"If everyone wears a mask, how do we know who's the goalie?"

Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-22 3:20:37 PM


BigCityLib: too bad that universal health care isn't helping you with your mental disorder (political correctness). You need serious help. Or maybe some terrorist attacking you one day will cure you.

Posted by: Werner Patels | 2007-10-22 3:29:21 PM


The main point here is why the reporters did not ask the question. They certainly ask inane questions all over the place when there are NO fatalities involved.

But the curse of PC forbids them to delve deeply when a "minority" is involved. Now if it had been a "bubba" driving, they might have inquired if he was smoking (gasp!) or listening to country music - both fatal distractions to socialists.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 3:43:04 PM


Driver's problem or problems associated with vision can be resolved in a Court of Ordinary Criminal Jurisdiction by an appropriate charge of Criminal Negligence causing death -let the Courts decide,which will also generate great interest in the local Media, and several ":cover" stories
featuring the perspective of "should a person vision
impaired be allowed to even enter a Certified School Bus much less drive it! - negligence is the key to
the sad and needless incident. 82 year old pilot who flew into a high rise recently was either vision impaired and could not see the dials in front of him or could not comprehend what they were telling
him, and should not have been flying VFR "Visual Flight Rules" in any event if he had survived he would have been charged with an offense under the Aeronautics Act.Another stupid avoidable "accident" Macleod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-10-22 4:32:28 PM


"in any event if he had survived he would have been charged with an offense"

Yes - probably with changing a condo's height without permission from the zoning board.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 4:37:30 PM


wallyj ~

"Liberalism is not only a mental disorder,it is also a vision problem,in more ways than one."

In other words, their blinders impair their vision just as much as a hijab.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 4:43:01 PM


Why would anyone NEED a hoody or headscarf to drive a bus? It should not be allowed if there is any doubt about obstruction of vision.

Someone knows the truth in this case and it should be brought out in a court review.

This is serious business. Anyone licensed to drive our precious children in a school bus should have to pass very stringent tests and obey the rules, including wearing vision obstructing objects on their heads.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-10-22 5:00:23 PM


Damn good comments Ezra.

As a non-religious person, I would say that this obsession with 'religious rights' has gotten right out of hand, as so often happened with the extremist Crooked Liberal Party du Canada.

Driving with a possible vision blocker (kid opens window and blows scarf over drivers face) is just stupid.

If the Lifestyle Nazis want to charge people for smoking in a car, then they can damn well charge people that wear anything, religious or not, that can block one's vision while driving.

In fact, that is why window tints are strictly controlled.

Drivers need to to see. Duh!

Posted by: rockyt | 2007-10-22 5:00:32 PM


Good point rockyt. Anyone want to bet that had the driver been smoking a cigaret at the time MSM would have been all over her. But something possibly impairing her vision and identified as a religious or cultural thing must not be mentioned by MSM.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-22 5:23:16 PM


I think people who are too short, can only see out of one eye, can’t turn their heads, and have long hair should be banned from driving unless we get more regulations, government intervention and more police on the streets to save us from ourselves.

Good job Mr. Lavant, more regulations and government intervention! I always knew you were a liberal at heart.

In all reality….

I must admit, I didn’t think “news” on this site and “reporting” by Mr. Levant could get anymore ridiculous… but I keep coming back, and keep finding more hilarity every time.

With quality reporting like this, I wonder why the Western Standard couldn’t sell magazines and had to discontinue their print version. Hmmm?

Posted by: Xenomorph | 2007-10-22 10:36:10 PM


I think people who are too short, can only see out of one eye, can’t turn their heads, and have long hair should be banned from driving unless we get more regulations, government intervention and more police on the streets to save us from ourselves.

Good job Mr. Lavant, more regulations and government intervention! I always knew you were a liberal at heart.

In all reality….

I must admit, I didn’t think “news” on this site and “reporting” by Mr. Levant could get anymore ridiculous… but I keep coming back, and keep finding more hilarity every time.

With quality reporting like this, I wonder why the Western Standard couldn’t sell magazines and had to discontinue their print version. Hmmm?

Posted by: Xenomorph | 2007-10-22 10:36:11 PM


This is a tempest in teapot. We sip the tea of suspicion about the cause of this accident and BigCityLib smokes the pot and condemns us for merely investigating the possible link between large idiotic headwear as a possible cause.

We are suspicious and rightly so of all things Muslim nowadays because they hate us and want to destroy us and we are starting to reciprocate. It's a natural progression. Get used to it. It ain't going to be over until the fat lady sings Amazing Grace.

Posted by: John | 2007-10-22 10:50:51 PM


BOTTOM LINE

I do not want anyone wearing anything on there head that may cause them troubles with there vision if they are to drive my kids around this city.
I personnally think what ever this driver was wearing may have blocked her vision. How do you hit a truck that is way off the road with its flashers on if you can see everything perfectly? Also, I'm curious how long this woman has had a licence in this country for. Any driver with under 15 years of experience driving shouldn't even be aloud in a bus full of kids!!!!!

Posted by: Me | 2007-10-22 11:46:31 PM


"I wonder why the Western Standard couldn’t sell magazines and had to discontinue their print version. Hmmm?

Nearly all start up mags go under nowadays because the dead tree industry is in it's twilight. All MSM is in big trouble and many of the majors will be gone soon.

I hope the Standard remains on the web so we can still have at least one voice of reason available in Canada. The USA has right leaning talk radio fast becoming the MSM and rags like the NYT and the major TV networks are becoming the fringe.

That is why the dems are pushing the 'fariness doctrine' with would act like our CRTC where the government can decide what get aired and what doesn't. That is why CNN is available in Canada on main channels and the much larger and better Fox new is on an obscure channel that you must pay extra for and take other useless packaged channels with it.

Posted by: John | 2007-10-22 11:56:44 PM


Ya... loose the CRTC... sure do want more American content like CNN and FOX in Canada. What a fantastic idea there John. Loose what little culture you guys have left (I am an expat "Canadian" in Australia). But that of course is another topic.

The WR folded. Capitalism worked. Nuff said.

Banning vision blocking hair styles / conditions / fashion choices for bus drivers IS news.

The person’s choice of religion is not.

Mr. Lavant didn't even try a veiled attempt (pun intended) at making something news worthy. Just went straight for the media conspiracy / Muslim invasion. Top notch reporting there…

Posted by: Xenomorph | 2007-10-23 12:13:57 AM


John - That is why CNN is available in Canada on main channels and the much larger and better Fox new is on an obscure channel that you must pay extra for and take other useless packaged channels with it.

The reason why CNN is available on standard cable is that they started broadcasting in 1980 when cable operators were looking for new content, and 24 hour news was unique. Fox News didn't start until 1996 at which time there were already half a dozen other broadcasters doing essentially the same thing.

Posted by: lotus 25 | 2007-10-23 6:02:02 AM


Sorry, lotus blossom.

Channels change their locations all the time, depending on their popularity. CNBC used to be on the first tier until poor viewership pushed them to a level around that of FOX NEWS.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-23 6:28:53 AM


Since when does wearing a hijab have anything to do with race?
Islam is a race?
I didn't know you can convert from one race to another.
I guess Leftists who slag Christianity or Christians are racists then.

Works for me.
Next time someone says something disparaging about Christians I'll call them a racist.
Yeah, that'll work.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-23 6:40:03 AM


Popularity of print media moves around all the time too... just like when unpopular unread magazines can’t stay afloat. They get moved to the garbage bin of history. I love capitalism.

Posted by: Xenomorph | 2007-10-23 6:50:38 AM


"I love capitalism." ~ Xenomorph

Obviously, anything that exits this trolls mouth is a lie and should not be taken seriously.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-23 6:53:33 AM


obc, check for yourself (if that is possible) I was on this site in the past, quite sometime, then left when it became obvious the "news" (if it could be called that) was so far right no one in their right mind could believe it. I was still on the e-mailing list when I got the sad news (read hilarious news) that the WR had succumbed to capitalism.

This "news" item about asking the "hard questions" makes one realize exactly why no one wanted to buy the print version.

Posted by: Xenomorph | 2007-10-23 7:03:32 AM


obc - Sorry, lotus blossom.
Channels change their locations all the time, depending on their popularity. CNBC used to be on the first tier until poor viewership pushed them to a level around that of FOX NEWS.

Channels may change their location though the amount of channels that can be sent over, usually copper wire, remains the same. When Fox News started in 1996 and cable was still analog there wasn't much spectrum left, and quite frankly when Fox News started it was awful. But I sure you're aware of all the engineering issues related to adding channels in a limited broadcast spectrum.

Posted by: lotus 25 | 2007-10-23 8:06:28 AM


From the Calgary Herald today:

"Traffic investigators are studying a motorist's claim he saw the same school bus involved in last Thursday's fatal crash being driven erratically a day earlier.

Police haven't determined what caused the crash, but will consider a statement from a Calgary man who came forward and said he saw the same bus making aggressive lane changes and tailgating the day before it collided with a parked dump truck.

"We'll definitely consider that, because it could be integral to the investigation," Insp. Gord Pelly said Monday."

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=0bab3c68-380e-4820-a932-4da9d2419b09

Was that woman on a personal jihad or what?

Posted by: Werner Patels | 2007-10-23 10:31:03 AM


What if we find out that thd driver is not Muslim and does not wear any headdress, but in the media footage was actually covering her head because the cameras were on her and she was in too much grief to face the public? Would this shine light on Levant's racist xenophobia and bring to the fore the crucial issue of focussing on drvier training over the driver's religion? Yes to both. Shame on Levant for looking to slag others just because of their beleifs. Levant is the one recklessly wearing blinders ... again.

Posted by: GBM | 2007-10-24 7:04:48 PM


And what if we find out she is really a he, and a Dipper to boot?

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-24 7:13:09 PM


Levant's veiled criticism of the media is that it did not ask all the necessary questions (a slippery technique of finding and highlighting a negativity about Muslims and why he does not like them contributing to the Canada mosaic) ... and yet, in his rush to publicly villify Muslim culture he makes the same error that he is castigating by not asking questions and getting answers before spouting off. This is highly irresponsible, but a typical consequence of a racist world-view and discourse.

Posted by: GBM | 2007-10-25 9:07:35 AM


GBM sound like a well-indoctrinated university student or graduate. He even has the verbiage memorized.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-25 9:11:23 AM


obc ... instead of a personal slag, address my point. Levant is guilty of the same error that he is criticising! ... he did not ask all the necessary questions before commenting. He says the cause of the mdeia not asking questions of the headdress is a liberal politically correct mentality within the Canadian media and general culture. I say the cause of his article is his distaste for Muslim culture, which he may deny, but as I said it is veiled, even to himself and apparently to you. Therefore, what ever Levant says is soiled by his untolerant perspective, so any conclusions he makes about political correctness are extremely suspect.

Posted by: GBM | 2007-10-25 9:44:43 AM


Slags masked in fancy language are still slags.

If for a second I thought you were being critical for honesty's sake, I'd reply in the same manner, rather than taking you to task for obvious arrogance.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-25 9:50:01 AM


in the form of a question then ... Do you think that Levant makes the same error in his comments about the media not asking questions about the bus driver's headdress when he does not ask the question of whether the driver is really Muslim and was actually wearing a headdress at the time of the accident?

Posted by: GBM | 2007-10-25 9:59:49 AM


>"obc ... instead of a personal slag, address my point. Levant is guilty of the same error that he is criticising! ...I say the cause of his article is his distaste for Muslim culture,"
Posted by: GBM | 25-Oct-07 9:44:43 AM

Quote from Ezra's writing above, the exact language that supports your so-called point.

I agree with obc that you are throwing an unsupported slag at Ezra because of your personal bias against him.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-25 10:03:43 AM


>"I don't know if it was a Muslim hijab, an Eastern European baboushka, or just a hoodie. I don't know because not a single one of the news reporters on the scene bothered to ask."
Ezra Levant

Here, from above, Ezra is making the point that the MSM won't give this information but he would like to know the answer.

He makes this point again as a Thread Topic:

HOW LONG WILL THIS BE IGNORED?
"There is a journalistic black hole here: we now know the name of the deceased child, but not the name of the bus driver.

I just don't get it. The story of the week in Calgary has been exhaustively reported, except for the identity, nature, history and other relevant details of the bus driver.
But surely journalists' jobs are to ask questions and try to get answers, not censor politically correct facts."
Posted by Ezra Levant on October 23, 2007 at 05:00 PM

You must be a very selectively blind reader, Great Bowel Movement.
It looks to me that you have a special place at the bottom of your black shrivelled little heart for Ezra Levant.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-25 10:16:33 AM


"how far we're willing to let Muslim culture trump Canadian culture, when the two clash" ... which triggers the fruitful debate and uncovering of the biases in those debates about what constitutes "Canadian culture".

... but my question goes unanswered.

Posted by: GBM | 2007-10-25 10:18:42 AM


don't be nasty ... I recognise that talented orators like Levant have an important place in our society and I appreciate that skill. However, I think some of his ideas are misplaced, and often dangerously ... which when followed blindly becomes represented in ways such as Speller's caustic namecalling, or worse as racism ... an injustice to Levant's broader work. Proof that these ideas need to be challenged.

Posted by: GBM | 2007-10-25 10:28:01 AM


>" I submit to you that they clash when it comes to wearing something that blocks a school bus driver's peripheral vision. I would say the same thing about any other religious appurtenance that interfered with driving."
Ezra Levant

You're very selective in your reading, GBM.
Canadians culture is about safety, and especially for their children.
Muslim culture is about strapping bomb belts on kiddies and leaving live grenades around for them to play catch with.

And since when is race something you can convert to, moron.

Racist(definition):
Anyone who is winning an argument against a Liberal.

>"Proof that these ideas need to be challenged."
Posted by: GBM | Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 10:28 AM

Yeah, challenged by the mentally challenged.


Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-25 10:36:50 AM


To nobody in particular:

It's the cellphone, stupid.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-10-25 10:40:49 AM


... is it your objective, Speller, to push away critical comment from this site with your exremely offensive comments? Will you feel content when this site is free of objective criticism?

It is within this site then (metaphorically of course) that you must dwell ... and I pity you.

My objective question remains unanswered.

Posted by: GBM | 2007-10-25 10:50:05 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.