Ezra Levant's Toronto Stop

I attended Ezra Levant's presentation on the Human Rights Commissions, and the latest developments, last Saturday. It looks like this is a prolonged book tour, but he's been in Toronto before for that specific purpose, so this tour must just be a further enunciation of his ideas.

I went there not to learn anything new - in fact, he didn't say anything new from what I've read in his blog and other blogs around Canada, and of course in his book.

But, that is the crunch of this whole thing. After having exposed the HRCs as the shameless frauds they are, after announcing that they be dismantled, what else is there to say?

I actually went to spice things up a bit - although I did go in all sincerity. I wanted to ask Levant the same question I posed in my previous post: What caused this undignified scurry by Canadians to relinquish important societal and personal freedoms at what seems like a drop of a hat? Why did Canadians submit so easily? What is it in the psyche of Canadians that they allowed their leaders to establish such an institution?

I don't think Levant has answers to these questions, since I don’t think he's really thought about them. My argument has always been that we need to look at these deep societal problems in order to truly eradicate such organizations as the HRCs. I don't think that now the HRCs have been exposed, other forms of censoring free speech, and all the other freedoms, will cease. The government can continue to play a myriad of roles similar to the HRCs, one of which is to give large quantities of free (and unearned) legal services to those who bring up the kinds of grievances that the HRCs had taken care of. In fact, this already happens.

But back to the evening (sponsored by the Libertarian Party of Canada, no less). I raised my hand near the end, when Levant had said he would ask two more people before wrapping up the evening. I would have been the second, and last, but he decided to curtail the evening with the penultimate (which ended up being the final) question.

I am sure Levant saw me. I even waved my hand (gently) a couple of times to get his attention, which I did. Since I link many times to his blog, I can presume that he reads what I have written, and knows who I am – I have my photo posted at one of my blogs.

My concerns on the HRC issues are different from the other blogs that write about it, who understandably are more of a cheer-leading type helping Levant on in his battle. I also understand the Levant: a. doesn't want anyone to rain on his parade - although I do acknowledge that he has done a really great job with his dogged fight; b. probably feels he has accomplished what he has set out to do, and doesn't think anything else is required.

But, debate is the great informer (was Levant censoring me?!). I don't think the fight is over, although Levant may really not be the one to pursue it further. I thought Kevin Michael Grace might have picked up the torch, but his two-year absence from the various national debates is telling. I think his paleo part has taken over, and I don’t think he can see the light at the end of the tunnel – he says as much here:

Self-censorship has become a defining Canadian characteristic. Despite Hadjis’s brave decision, it is unlikely we will see a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend any time soon.

But someone has to start. And a well-known media figure like Grace, who has clearly thought about these issues in depth, and whose analyses I have previously agreed with, is surely the best person to continue with what Levant has started.

Are Muslim Women Apostates the Same as Sharia-touting Muslims?

Stills from Shirin Neshat's videos: Rapture and Turbulence, from
my article "Islam's Missionary Women"

Jihad Watch (Robert Spencer), Altas Shrugs (Pamela Geller), Frontpage Magazine (Phyllis Chesler), and other anti-jihad sites have been covering extensively the death threat that is hanging over the head of the young Muslim apostate Rifqa Bary, who converted to Christianity. This is, of course, strictly within the mandates of Islam – "Kill the Apostates," it declares, and will do it.

More interesting to me is how Muslims apostates especially in the U.S. and Canada are reacting to this.

Nonie Darwish is a convert from Islam to evangelical Christianity, who emigrated to the U.S. from Egypt. She has an article at the Hudson New York with stringent demands that "The US government…protect its citizens not only from the terrorism of jihad, but also from Islamic Laws condemning Muslims to death and that encourage vigilante street justice."

Here are more quotes from that article:

There is no peace for the apostate, not even in the West. The above threat [on Rifqa Bary's life] is real and will increase exponentially with the growth of the Muslim population and those who demand Sharia as a religious right...

In Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and so on, the majority of the population believe that apostates must be killed and that jihad against non-Muslim countries a badge of honor. I do not wish to see the same desensitization happen in the West, but the silence of Western media is deafening.

Former Muslims need protection now from the US government and court system. We need protection from Sharia Islamic Law.

Notice how Darwish mentions in passing the growing Muslim population in the West, which is directly responsible for the increasing Muslim-related problems, but never mentions it again, let alone propose measures to solve it.

A while ago, before I started Our Changing Landscape, I was writing full-length articles for Camera Lucida, to include more detailed, researched information (and longer posts) that I didn't think a blog was good for.

Here is what I said in 2006 in my article "Islam's Missionary Women" for Camera Lucida (now a revised version of this article is on Camera Lucida and Our Chaning Landscape):

With their frenetic and wholehearted immersion into Islamic reform, these Muslim women are actually changing the laws and regulations which have served their adopted countries for decades, if not for centuries. They have expanded their original intention of culling allies, and instead appear to be ready for a takeover. Since they are beginning to realize that the West’s apprehension toward Islam is very different from theirs, they seem to think that one expedient option might be to usurp the institutions and organizations into performing their mission for them.

This article was later revised for Chronwatch, and published in October 2008.

I revised the above strong words from my 2006 article for the one in Chronwatch to:

But our duty as Westerners is not to reform Islam, nor to accommodate Muslim women - those very women who will have male and female Muslim off-spring, thereby turning our countries into what they left behind. Our responsibility is to make sure that Islam is kept at a distance, which includes Muslims. This may be a harsh rejection of the pleas made by the Hirsi Alis and Wafta Sultans, but they more than anyone else should understand our predicament. And if they don’t, how different are they from their male counterparts, who are aggressively pushing into our societies to change the West into an Islamified entity? We can never be sure if our assistance to these multitudes of Muslim women would alleviate their plight, but making drastic changes in our own societies in response to their grievances will only damage us.

My point remains the same now in 2009. The more Muslims we let into our countries, the more they, in their righteous and often correct indignation, are going to make demands on our systems to accommodate their needs.

This holds equally true for sharia proponents as well as for Muslim apostates and "moderates," who want to change laws and policies for problems that have nothing to do with Canada or the U.S.