Tuesday, September 28, 2021

German Politician Tells the Truth About Afghanistan and its People

Click on picture to go to link:

German parliamentarian, Sven Tritschler, from the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD)  stood before the German Parliament and told the Truth.  Kudos go to RAIR Foundation for this translation:

Madam President, Ladies and gentleman the Green party could not have made it clearer, than with this motion as to what Germany will be facing following the upcoming national elections. They want to open the door wide to anyone who attracted to our country, and are currently using the situation in Afghanistan as the hook. The Green Party creates the impression that we owe this country something. Why? We didn’t install the Taliban. They came to power there before our presence in Afghanistan decades ago. Since 2001, the German taxpayer has dumped at least 20 billion Euros into the Hindu kush. But not only that, several dozen German soldiers have lost their live there! The youngest being just 21 years old. Honestly, I think it is sad that none of the previous speakers mentioned a word about that, ladies and gentlemen. Others came home mentally and physically crippled. Believe me, I’m familiar with what such a mission can do to a young person. I myself took part in such a mission, even if it was comparably harmless in Bosnia. But it doesn’t end there. We gave the Afghan government an army. We trained it and equipped it. Nominally, the force was far superior to the Taliban. What did the soldiers do at the slightest sign of danger? They ran away, or they defected. No ladies and gentlemen, our country owes Afghanistan nothing. Actually, it is the other way around. Afghanistan is right back where it was, before our soldiers came. That’s exactly where an overwhelming majority of the population obviously wants to be. According to a recent survey, 99% of Afghans support shariah law. 85% want stoning for unfaithful wives. 79% are in favor of killing apostates. The attitude towards Jews and homosexuals is obvious there. Ladies and gentlemen this is what they want to bring to our country by the hundreds of thousands. We the AfD are the only party that says: “No thank you!” ladies and gentlemen.

We could help these people better in their neighboring countries where they fit in better culturally, but not in Germany.  Something very significant among the people we have flown out, is that less than 20% were even so-called local staff. Among them were twenty criminals, including a child molester, but oh well,, he’s here now, ladies and gentlemen, and he will soon be loose again. Thank you, CDU. Thank you dear SPD. It is well-known that we cannot integrate these people en masse into our society. They form parallel societies. They originate from an archaic tribal society, and they do not belong here. So before any outrage explodes here: NO this has nothing to do with race. Allow me to quote Helmut Schmidt, someone who led the SPD before 25% was considered a success. 

Immigration from Afghanistan brings with it considerable problems. It is a different civilization. Not due to their different genes, not because of their different ancestry, but because of the way they were raised as infants, the way they were raised as toddlers, the way they were raised as school children, the way they were raised as children within families.

End of quote. And we don’t need these people either. They aren’t skilled workers. At least not for what is needed in Germany. The so-called “shortage of skilled workers” is a fairy tale told by migration lobbyists and business associations who want to decrease wage levels in Germany. Do you know what the “skilled worker shortage” used to be called? It was called full-time employment, and that’s a good thing, especially for employees, ladies and gentlemen. They can’t negotiate any better. So what are the so-called “middle class” doing in this situation? As we’ve just heard, they’re being a bit coy. After all, there’s an election campaign. They’re ducking out of the way, and of course they’re against these demands from the Green Party. But how credible is that really? In Cologne, one of the cities with the most expensive rents in Germany, the CDU, the FDP, the Left party, the Greens, and the SPD have just united in calling for more migration from Afghanistan, using the nice argument that “we have room.” 

Gerhard Papke, who until recently was the vice-president for the FDP here in the state parliament, and for years its parliamentary group leader, tweeted yesterday and I quote: “After 16 years of Merkel, the Union and FDP, have apparently completely capitulated to the agenda of the political left. Even with its back to the wall, the CDU avoids the issue of migration like the devil resists holy water, even though immigration from Afghanistan mercilessly exposes the problems.” End Quote.

Dear CDU, Dear FDP, 

You have something in common with the Afghan army. You surrender without fighting. Obviously you’re not really convinced by your own words. Fortunately, you no longer have a monopoly. Citizens can now vote for us, the AfD. We’ll promise you one thing. There will be no new 2015 [reference to mass migration of Muslims to Germany] with us. Even after the federal election. We therefore reject the motion. – Thank you very much.

Sunday, September 19, 2021

Interview with Clare Lopez: Iran's Involvement with 9/11


This interview the day before the 20th horror-versary of 9/11 will reveal shocking information most Americans do not know. Listen closely to hear about Iran protecting Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. This information has been out there and known. Why is it not taught every where when we discuss 9/11?

Friday, June 25, 2021

NEW BOOK: The Cancer of Civilization Jihad


My newest book, The Cancer of Civilization Jihad has been released on Amazon and will soon be released to be in your local bookstores. If you have liked the in depth research into the social norms of the faith structure Islam, in this blog you will enjoy 20 chapters on the topic in this book! I love research, and this book is my best work yet! It is my hope and dream to get into different translations so it can be read around the world!

Get your copy here!


Saturday, April 24, 2021

SFSU's Love Affair with Promoting Terrorism to Their Students


On Friday, April 23, 2021 the San Francisco State University had attempted to engage in a Zoom lecture with their partner An-Najah National University, in the Islamic controlled area of Israel, called the Palestine. An-Najah is known for its long history with violence and the promotion of actions defined as terrorism around the world.

An-Najah National University’s partnership with San Francisco State University has been documented in depth by Cinnamon Stillwell who writeths for Campus Watch amongst many others. Stillwell has extensively documented that this partnership began with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2014. This document’s architect was SFSU professor Rabab Abdulhadi.

As recently as 2018, the NGO-Monitor noted that an event to honor convicted terrorists was organized by UNESCO’s Chair for Democracy and Human Rights at An An-Najah National University, in cooperation with Palestinian National Liberation Movement, Fatah. This even honored 61 prisoners who completed ONE course. Amongst these prisoners were:

It must be noted that UNESCO has a position at a An Najah University for Democracy and Human Rights that promotes the extermination of Jews “from the river to the sea.” How UNESCO can have such a position at a University that promotes the ideal of genocide of the Jewish nation of Israel is beyond comprehension. UNESCO attempted to distance itself by claiming it does not finance the chairs it “sponsors.”

SFSU knowing of this continual promotion of terrorist acts through the honoring of convicted terrorists by their “partner” has not only continued the partnership, it promotes the ideal of “from the river to the sea” by hosting a convicted terrorist on their April 22, 2021 Zoom session. That terrorist, Leila Khaled, is a veteran member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a US designated terrorist entity that has MURDERED AMERICANS. According to the Jewish News of Northern California, “Khaled, one of the PFLP's most notorious faces, was the first woman to hijack a plane, once in 1969 and again in 1970. She was later freed from custody as part of a prisoner swap between the United Kingdom and the terror group.”

This was not the first attempt by SFSU at providing a platform for a KNOWN terrorist to speak to highly influential young men and women. This was their SECOND ATTEMPT! It was also the second time because the Lawfare Project again informed Zoom that they would be violating Federal law if they allowed the broadcast. Zoom NOT SFSU halted the promotion of terrorist propaganda to young influential minds!

As recently as November of 2020, the US Education Department was investigating whether SFSU broke federal rules when they attempted to host an event with Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist Leila Khaled in September of 2020. An event that was only cancelled because the Lawfare Project contacted Zoom and informed them who Leila Khaled was!

The NY Post wrote in September of 2020 that:

the Lawfare Project, which argued that Zoom could face legal liability for hosting it because the US has labeled Khaled’s group a terrorist organization. The California-based company determined the event violated its terms of service for that very reason.

“In light of the speaker’s reported affiliation or membership in a US designated foreign terrorist organization, and SFSU’s inability to confirm otherwise, we determined the meeting is in violation of Zoom’s Terms of Service and told SFSU they may not use Zoom for this particular event,” a Zoom spokesperson said in a statement, adding that the firm is “committed to supporting the open exchange of ideas and conversations.”

On top of this, Truth Revolt documented through information obtained throught FOIAs, that SFSU professors Rabab Abdulhadi and Joanne Barker, along with Abdulhadi's husband, met with terrorists Leila Khaled and Sheikh Raed Salah during the "Labor Delegation to Palestine 2014" which began on January 5th, 2014 and concluded on February 14th, 2014.

Sheikh Raed Salah, the second person deemed important enough for the two professors to meet with, has repeatedly earned his way into a prison cell for encouraging violence against Jews and praising those who attack Israeli citizens. His latest sentence began this past August.

UC Merced and SFSU deserve letters of disgust, including requests to the federal and state governments for denials of financing these universities for attempting to provide a platform to known terrorists.

An Najah National University recently named its 2017 class of class “of economics and political science students” after the terrorist murderer Dalal Mughrabi. Specifically, they called themselves, “"The Class of the Bride of the Coast - Martyr Dalal Mughrabi." It should be known that the Shabiba logo at graduation ceremony reads:  "From the sea of blood of the Martyrs we will create a state." In 2016 An Najah National University established a reading chain dedicated to a man who boarded a bus with a partner and began shooting and stabbing those present until they were put down. This is a partner school with SFSU!

A list of SFSU’s Board of Trustees can be found here.

UC Merced’s Board of Trustees can be found here.

But there are those whose work and stands who stops this event from happening that deserves letters of praise for standing up for ALL AMERICANS and against the endorsement of terrorism! Amongst them are members of the Lawfare Project, and two members of Congress who should be praised for keeping their oath to protect America from “enemies foreign and domestic.”

According to Algemeiner, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)also had attempted to get the leaders of UC Merced and San Francisco State University to cancel the Zoom session that was the equivalent of promoting terrorist propaganda. Please send kind words his way as well.



Friday, April 16, 2021

Hasan Shibly and Mut'ah: Purveyor of Temporary Marriage

(April 16, 2021)  This week Hassan Shibly one of the most well known followers of Islam in the United States, confessed to having engaged in contract marriages to NPR. According to NPR, “Shibly said that he did enter into religious marriage contracts with women outside his legal marriage when he and his wife were separated and prior to that — with her permission and when he felt their marriage was essentially over. He denies that any of the relationships were secret or abusive and described them as courtships.

This should be no surprise as temporary marriages are accepted normal under Islam. This is part of the Islamic social norms that they bring with them into Western Civilization where polygamy is illegal and the concept of contract marriages is known as prostitution. In Islam it is simply called Mut’ah. Many people have been saying this can never happen in North America. BUT IT IS!

The truth is that this Islamic social norm has been a part of Islam since the time of Muhammad! The concept of a temporary marriage is based on the Quran 4:24 and 5:27.

And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

O you who have believed, do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.

The last verse is further explained in the Hadith Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 60, #139:

Narrated Abdullah:   
We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet). "Shall we castrate ourselves?" But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: "O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you."

Muhammad and his men were waging jihad. They had been forbidden to have sex outside of marriage and from masturbation. The men were so consumed with lust that Muhammad gave a revelation allowing them to engage in mut’ah.

This revelation of Muhammad for mut’ah was recognized and acknowledged as still current by Sunni scholars during ISIS’ beginning conquests. Islamic scholars issued fatwas giving the mujahdeen (fighters/jihadis) the right to rape women. One ofthese Islamic scholars, “Muhammed al-Arifi issued a fatwa that allows jihadi fighters to rape Syrian women.” This fatwa was shared with the world by Lebanon’s Al Jadeed TV. Al-Arifi allowed the jihadis to engage in "intercourse marriage" that lasts for a few hours ‘in order to give each fighter a turn.’”

What al-Arifi said to the women living there, including the Muslim women was a little more horrifying. This statement is addressed to all women living in Syria.


It is the women's duty to acquiesce in this arrangement in order to reach paradise because it "boosts the determination of the Mujahideen in Syria" as long they are at least 14 years old, widowed, or divorced.

It is important to recognize that this fatwa recognizes an allowance for temporary marriages. While allowing and ordering the legality of rape. This is within both Sunni and Shi’ah Islam. Is this a social norm you want to see prevalent in your community?

Hassan Shibly has just openly confessed to engaging in Mut'ah. In doing this he is openly promoting this illegal practice in the USA as something NORMAL! That should make every American shake his head and say "NO, NOT HERE!"  

Please support my work by giving to my patreon account.


Please support my work by giving through PayPal or by sending a check to Paul Sutliff, PO Box 12846, 4455 Lake Avenue, Rochester, NY 14612.

Monday, April 12, 2021

Unconstitutional USE of New York STATE TAXPAYER Funds to Finance Illegal Immigration


NYS has created a $2.1 BILLION fund for “to provide cash payments to workers who have suffered income loss due to COVID but who are ineligible for Unemployment Insurance or related Federal benefits due to their immigration status or other factors. Such workers must be low-income and provide sufficient documentation to establish work-related eligibility and residency in the state.” 

This fund specifically is to give CASH payments  of amounts that exceed what citizens of the United States have received from the federal government in disbursements. IS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL? NO!

According to the US 29 CFR § 1606.1 the federal law on employment, no person’s national origin shall allow a person to be discriminated against. Under US24 CFR § 100.60 it is not legal to deny a person the ability to housing based on their national origin. The Federal department of Education also denies the ability to discriminate based on national origin (US 34 CFR Appendix B to Part 100).

Yet, this disbursement of NYS is only to persons NOT of NATIONAL ORIGIN of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! It excludes all persons who are here in the country legally the wording implies that it is still possible to receive this disbursement for other reasons if you are US citizen, but the stated qualifier itself is discriminatory as it places additional requirements of proving “work-related eligibility.” In addition this disbursement far exceeds what all LEGAL citizens of the United States have received from the federal government. The New Times stated that this disbursement will be  

one-time payments of up to $15,600 to undocumented immigrants who lost work during the pandemic. 

This disbursement is of tax dollars that do not exist. Back in September of 2020, WAMC writer, Karen Dewitt noted that even the Liberals and the Conservatives in the state agree on the severe problems of a budget that shows endless spending. When she wrote:

E.J. McMahon, with the conservative leaning fiscal watchdog group the Empire Center, and Ron Deutsch, with the liberal leaning Fiscal Policy Institute, do agree on some things.

One, that the amount of the state deficit is huge. Cuomo’s budget office estimates it has grown to $14.5 billion. And two, that it’s time to be worried.

According to Chelsea Diane a reporter with the Albany Business Review, The estimated debt for the next TWO YEARS is an additional $15 Billion!

Gov. Cuomo and the NYS Legislature have proposed tax increases on millionaires. Historically, this results in millionaires leaving the state and establishing residency in other states. This has happened in California where a mass exodus of millionaires happened in 2012 when the state raised their taxes.

Please support my work by giving to my patreon account.


Please support my work by giving through PayPal or by sending a check to Paul Sutliff, PO Box 12846, 4455 Lake Avenue, Rochester, NY 14612.

Friday, January 29, 2021

Are Muslim Women required to wear the hijab or is it a choice?

This question is asked for sever reasons, amongst them are the differing claims of Muslim women that is a choice, and a requirement. If it is required why would some make the claim. This must be examined.

Womens’ magazine Cosmopolitan decided it was important to ask this question on July 4, 2016:

While Islam as a religion often comes under heavy scrutiny for its oppression of women, given many wear a hijab around their face or a burqa to cover their full body, isn't it worth hearing how the women themselves feel?

We think so, which is why this Reddit thread, which invites women who do wear a traditional garments to cover themselves up either fully or partially in public, was so interesting to read. How does it feel to wear it? Is it a choice or is there pressure from within their family or their community? Do they feel sidelined in public because of their burqa?[1]

Sadly, this article talks about how a woman feels, addresses the head scarf (hijab) only as a family tradition, but never explores if it is required by Islam. It is as if the brief article asks the question fairly from women who like and hate the hijab. In this it appears unbiased, unless you ask why they addressed the question about pressure from a family versus a religious requirement. The article in truth never addresses who or what places the requirement on the family. Is it not Islam that places this requirement or choice on a family? What does Islam say about the Hijab? Is it a choice?

The Quran states in 33:59 that Muslim men must tell their wives and daughters to cover-up for their own safety. Below is the verse. The reasoning for covering pretty much mean if you do not obey a severe punishment follows.

O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

This is not clearly stating to cover the hair. But notice the reasoning behind it. If they are not covered, they will be abused. This a reference to sexual abuse. Who would do the abusing? Considering this passage was given inside an Islamic community, it would be Muslim men doing the abuse. This included daughters. So little girls also had to be cautious of men seeking to sexually abuse them AND WERE TOLD TO COVER THEMSELVES TO KEEP FROM BEING MOLESTED.

The Quran also says in 24:31:

And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.

Some say this stomping was to show cleavage that their garments did not cover, but the shawl/ head gear draped over them to provide extra protection. Some say that it is indeed a covering over the hair because ‘adornment’ is a direct reference to the hair. A slight reference is made to women stomping so they could show someone their pretty hair, by causing their cover to slip. This has evolved to a tight wrap of the hair not allowing any of it to appear in public. Does this seem optional? Is there a choice given? Remember the statement the above citation states the purpose is to protect the women and daughters from sexual attacks.

In the Islamic countries like Pakistan the head covering of a hijab can also be a chador. One official in the Haripur district of Pakistan in September of 2019, made it mandatory for all school age girls to wear a head covering and gown to dress "in order to protect them from any unethical incident," and “necessary to protect girl students from a growing number of complaints of eve-teasing and harassment."[2]

Here they are saying that school girls’ (ages 5 to 18) hair is tempting men to sexually molest girls, so it is their fault if this happens, IF THEY ARE NOT COVERED. Of course, if they are, their word only counts as half a man in a court of law so they can never bring charges against their molester.

The question of whether the hijab is mandatory has been a central theme wherever Islam wanders today. On August 7, 2019, Al-Qaeda's Al-Sahab media wing released a video of Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri titled "The Battle of the Hijab.” The Middle East Media Research Institute caught this, translated it and released a summary of it to the public within a week. According to this lover of shariah, western countries are doing everything they can to destroy Islamic women’s modesty and morals. This is how Islamic women are warned against Western cultural values. It is deemed as an attack on their modesty.

France has had a law forbidding the displaying of religion for a hundred years. It is called, Laïcité (Lah-Cee-Tay). They have been fighting to keep French culture which a hijrah is working to dismiss. France passed a law in 2010[3] to ban the face veil as part of keeping French culture and Laïcité. Granted this is not about the hijab, but this is a more restrictive requirement placed on Islamic women by stricter observance of Islam seen in many Islamic countries.

This law passed the French Senate with 46 votes and had already passed the upper house of the parliament in July of that year. Justice Minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie stated, “the full veil dissolves a person's identity in that of a community. It calls into question the French model of integration, founded on the acceptance of our society's values. Living with one's face uncovered was a question of dignity and equality."[4]

In the USA the Democratic Party took it upon themselves to lift a 181 year old law forbidding hats in the House of Representatives so that Ilhan Omar would not have to remove her hijab in order to serve in her role as a representative of Minnesota. While a hijab is not a hat it is a head covering. She is one of two Muslim women elected. Rep. Rashida Tlaib does not wear a hijab, so they simply could have enforced the rule showing that not all Muslims follow this rule. Rep. Ilhan Omar has made bold statements about her hijab and her reasons for wearing it. In March 0f 2019, she told Vogue magazine, that


wearing her hijab allows her to be a ‘walking billboard’ not only for her faith but also for representing something different from the norm. ‘To me, the hijab means power, liberation, beauty, and resistance.’[5]


This is the same rule that several Democrats violated, by wearing hoodies on March 28th, 2012, when trying to show they were standing with Trayvon Martin who was killed in Florida.

In 2007, Quebec Canada’s Bouchard-Taylor Com-mission created recommendations, which became policies for the province. Amongst them was:


Judges, Crown prosecutors, police officers, prison guards and the president and vice-president of the National Assembly be prohibited from wearing religious signs.[6]

This recommendation was for government employees alone. It in effect banned the Christians from wearing of a cross, the Sikhs from wearing a turban, Jew from wearing yarmulkes, or Muslim women from wearing a hijab to work in a government post. There is no religious prejudice involved as it does not address any one religion.

Tarek Fatah, a Canadian Muslim “reformist” sees the hijab a little differently than many do today. He wrote of it:

The fact is that while the Sikh turban, Jewish yarmulkes and the Catholic crucifix are definitely religious symbols, the hijab is not. Rather it is a political symbol that until the late 1970s was unheard of in Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Turkey, Somalia and Nigeria. It was the uniform of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world.[7]

Fatah also made mention of Ferid Chikhi who lives in Qubec and agrees with him that the hijab is a political symbol more than a religious one. Chiki stated,

… the hijab, conceals in itself the idea, the representation or the thought of a first generic sense which is ignored by all and which conveys a double meaning: translated in French or in other languages, this word wants say curtain, separation, hanging ... or even storefront and not dress or scarf that covers the head of women. He simply referred to a separation of the space into two, the foreign men to the Prophet's house and that of his women.


Then, history reminds us, after the death of the Prophet, the male power extended the territory hijab imposing it as a separation between the spaces of all men and all women. Finally, at those generally Islamic and not Muslims, citing verses al-Ahzâb (33 e sura), the khimar is a shawl and djilbab or thaûb are shawls, worn by the women of the time in these same Arab Gulf coun-tries. They did not have the function of covering as they would like to make us believe the head, but the shoulders and the chest.[8]

This is the reason why some ambiguity exists as to whether a hijab is required or not. The Quran refers to covering. It refers to shawls and more. But the specific item of a hijab is not mentioned. It is why Iran has a chador and not a hijab.

Whether required a woman is often left without a choice to wear the hijab. Youness Moussaid, left little doubt of this December 6, 2019 in Bismark,[9] North Dakota, when school officials reported the abuse he had done to his step-daughter. His step-daughter was refusing to wear the hijab and dresses when at school. She snuck in a change of clothing.

Moussaid in response struck the teenage girl with a broom stick, causing bruising on the top of her right hand and on the front of her thighs. He grabbed her hair and struck her head against the wall, causing a quarter-sized bump.

Moussaid admitted to this crime. Perhaps he did not see it as a crime, or did not understand females are considered equals under the law.

The girl now has an order of protection from her step-father. He faces 5 years if convicted. Moussaid felt justified by the Islamic social norm he believed exists to demand his daughter wear a hijab.


[1] Harvey-Jenner, Catronia. 2016. "Muslim women explain how they feel about wearing a hijab: Mainly it's their choice." Cosmopolitan. July 4. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/news/a44416/muslim-women-explain-how-feel-wearing-burqa-hijab/.

[2]  Sirajuddin. 2019. "KP govt makes it mandatory for schoolgirls across the province to 'cover up'." Dawn. September 16. Accessed September 30, 2019. https://www.dawn.com/news/1505542.

[3] Davies, Lizzy. 2010. "France: Senate votes for Muslim face veil ban." The Guardian. September 14. Accessed October 1, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/14/france-senate-muslim-veil-ban.

[4] Ibid

[5] (GOUVEIA 2019)

[6] (Global News 2013)

[7] Fatah, Tarek. 2019. "FATAH: Why some Canadian Muslims celebrated the Quebec hijab ban." Toronto Sun. June 18. Accessed October 2, 2019. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/fatah-why-some-canadian-muslims-celebrated-the-quebec-hijab-ban.

[8] Cikhi, Ferid. 2019. "State secularism: veil or hijab, the real meanings and their scope." Huffington Post. March 28. Accessed October 2, 2019. https://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/ferid-chikhi/laicite-etat-voile-hijab-veritables-significations-portees-quebec_a_23702059.

[9] Svihovec, Travis. 2019. "Man accused of abusing stepdaughter with broomstick over religious beliefs." The Bismark Tribune. December 6. Accessed March 30, 2020. https://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/bismarck/man-accused-of-abusing-stepdaughter-with-broomstick-over-religious-beliefs/article_4d95d50a-95c1-555f-a2bb-cca8e84dd7d1.html

Please support my work by giving through PayPal or by sending a check to Paul Sutliff, PO Box 12846, 4455 Lake Avenue, Rochester, NY 14612.